Nationalists Attack Ron Paul

There’s been a flurry of blogs and articles in the Alternative Right blogosphere condemning Ron Paul for one reason or another.  (The “alternative-right”, for those of you who don’t know, is a political community of racially-aware dissidents who are characterized by a general trend of intellectualism, conservatism and well-informed opinions.)

The complaint is that Paul is, either knowingly or unknowingly, duping poor whites — taking our money with no intent to repay in form of beneficial laws once in the White House.  (In some cases, Alt.Right bloggers claim Paul is a scoundrel for spreading libertarian principles instead of white-nationalist ones…but if that’s true then my mother is also a scoundrel!  Best to avoid that slippery slope.)

Now, barring a coordinated machiavellian offensive on the part of the Alt.Right bloggers (where they actually support Paul but are criticizing him to try and convince the media that “racists” aren’t Paul supporters) there are at least three general mistakes that I see in all this anti-Paul rhetoric.

The first is the mistake of thinking Paul intelligent enough to pull off a mass-conspiracy against racially-aware white people.  It’s been my experience that very few Americans are epistemologically self-conscious.  I mean:  very few Americans are self-conscious of their underlying world and life view and how it informs their beliefs in any given subject-area.

I know this is true of Paul.  He is (at least) confused on how his Christianity influences his political and ideological life.  I’m not sure how this is possible, though.  With writers like Gary North out there, how could Paul miss this sort of thing?  Gary North is a Christian theonomist / reconstructionist and prominent intellectual within the libertarian community, posting regularly at Lew Rockwell.  He even worked for Ron Paul’s campaign in the past and lectures frequently for the Von Mises institute.  Paul must be — at least partially — aware of North’s work.  Nevertheless, Paul repeatedly demonstrates that his worldview is not systematic, but rather piecemeal.

Since Paul’s view is not systematic, but piecemeal, it’s reasonable to assume that he’s not thinking within the same paradigm as disgruntled white-nationalists and Alt.Right bloggers.  Paul, I believe, simply doesn’t realize the implications of his economic positions for a white populace — he doesn’t think in those terms.  He’s thinking like his ideological mentors, Mises and Rothbard and they see the world through green lenses — wealth and it’s distribution throughout society, forms the basis of Austrian class-theory.

This leads me to the second mistake.  It’s often asserted that Austrian economic theory is bad for whites and bad for white-nationalism as an enterprise, but I’ve yet to read an in-depth analysis of Austrian theory from any of these bloggers.

For example, don’t just say that “free-trade” is evil — demonstrate it economically!  Present a metaphysical view in which “value” has a consistent and objective meaning, then show why Austrian economic theory necessarily violates that objective good and promotes an ever-increasing scarcity of value.

It’s harder to approach economic-theory this way, though.  It takes a lot of work, research and accurate reporting.

If it’s true that various economic policies based on an Austrian economic paradigm would increase the standard-of-living for whites and increase their ability to freely-associate and control their economic destiny, then the fact that Ron Paul promotes these policies without realizing that they’re conducive to white-nationalist’s political ambitions shouldn’t be controversial or objectionable.  If Paul’s (possible) policies are not conducive to a white nationalist political goal, then prove it.  Show how, exactly.

This naturally leads to a third mistake: Gary North often reminds us that “Ya can’t beat something with nothing.”

Until a gifted white-nationalist economic-theorist comes along and provides us all with a coherent and agreeable economic system, we’re going to have to continue relying on the work of non-nationalist economists, including the Austrians, of whom Ron Paul is a disciple.

I do wish the cavalier rhetoric against Ron Paul and against Austrian economics (in general) was offered from a well-laid foundation of nationalist (or at least, racialist) economic ideology.

Unfortunately, the criticisms of the Alt.Right seem more like pot-shots from disgruntled ideologues.

I’m supporting Ron Paul for various reasons and while I’m moving away from the Austrian school of economics (and away from purely ‘rationalist’ schools all together) I remain convinced that there is much of value to be had in the writings of Mises, Rothbard and all the others.

The Gay Problem

The flaw in the ideological position of the American sodomite (and the homosexual lobby in general) is that they’ve conceded the idea that sexual inclinations are either one way or the other.  A person is either attracted to the same sex, or they are attracted to the opposite sex, and in some rare cases, there may be individuals attracted to both.

But, in all cases, a person’s sexual preferences are fatally determined by genetics or other biological factors (so they’ll say.)

In this way, they hope to ring in a new sexual utopia in America by skirting Christian arguments.  If humans are born with this or that sexual preference, then God certainly can’t hold them responsible for it, after all!  So it’s of the greatest importance for the homosexual lobby to place sexual preferences in the realm of deterministic nature, because that counters any claims the Christian might make as to its moral legitimacy.

But the homosexual lobby will soon figure out how American Christians operate and change their tune.

Overseas, in Switzerland, a nation where Christianity is all but dead, the homosexual lobby has taken a different, and more logical position, one which brings together radical feminism with homosexuality and a general death of all things Christian:

The episode was a wake-up call for me … What does a gender science look like? [You hear the] gender mantra “sex is a social construct”. You also come across the ideas that “everyone is really bisexual, but are socialised into a polarised sexuality” and “heterosexuality is a manifestation of the patriarchal power structure”. Hmm, interesting hypotheses. I immediately think that they are easily testable by studying groups with nearly the same biology that we have … Namely the other mammals.

Sexual preferences, in the end, are NOT biologically determined, (say the Swedes) but rather, are determined by the mean ol Christian social constructs that all Europeans have lived and moved in for centuries.  We’re all bisexuals, you see.  Who we have sex with, were we functioning normally, without all those nasty Christian constructs, would be completely up to us; a free choice with no biological compulsions one way or the other.

Does any of this sound familiar?

“Sex doesn’t exist, it’s just a social construct, we’re all humans” ?

Well, it’s the exact same rhetoric and ideology that gives power to the whole “civil-rights” movement here in America.

“Race doesn’t exist, it’s just a social construct, we’re all humans!”

American Christians have been so emasculated by this sort of argument, … so utterly trounced … that they would have no ideological leg to stand on should the homosexual lobby here take up the same arguments as the Swedes.

It’s the underlying Christian structure of society that these Satanists hate.  Faggotry, Race-mixing, abortions, socialism, and ALL the other “isms” that we despise ALL share, as their fundamental driving force, this hate for the Christian social order of Old Europe.

They hate the “family” because “family” is a barrier to their ideal society…they hate traditional roles for men and women, they hate class distinctions and aristocracy, they hate the very DNA we’re all made of!!!  DNA itself is a tie to the material world and acts as a barrier to their evil quest for god-hood!

The dream of our enemy is complete sovereignty over nature!

How can the Christian fight this sort of idea?  What are the come backs?

Well, I would like to encourage you, if you’re reading this and you’re a Christian who is still stuck in the old paradigm of thought and, when confronted with a homosexual, your first inclination is to prove to him that his particular sin is a lifestyle choice…to give up that sort of argument and instead, argue in favor of the very foundation of Western culture.

God set up the family-unit in a particular way…He determines the roles of men and the roles of women and when we step outside those roles, we’re in sin.  He determines the authority of a father and that of a mother.  He sets all things in their place and all men in their position in society.  It’s by His grace that we advance in class.  Of course, you’ll also have to end up admitting the same things of race and racial distinctions in society.

The brass-tacks of the matter:  You HAVE to STOP letting yourself be taken in by these sorts of neo-Marxist, evil arguments.  You simply MUST reject politically-correct ideology and embrace the old Christian order.

We’re here waiting for you, with our arms outstretched…

Natural vs. Artificial Aristocracy and Why Jefferson was Wrong

In a letter to John Adams, Thomas Jefferson gives us a glimpse of the underlying motivations inherent in his political ideology.  Specifically, we can see his view of aristocracies:

For I agree with you that there is a natural aristocracy among men. The grounds of this are virtue and talents. Formerly bodily powers gave place among the aristoi. But since the invention of gunpowder has armed the weak as well as the strong with missile death, bodily strength, like beauty, good humor, politeness and other accomplishments, has become but an auxiliary ground of distinction. There is also an artificial aristocracy founded on wealth and birth, without either virtue or talents; for with these it would belong to the first class. The natural aristocracy I consider as the most precious gift of nature for the instruction, the trusts, and government of society. And indeed it would have been inconsistent in creation to have formed man for the social state, and not to have provided virtue and wisdom enough to manage the concerns of the society. May we not even say that that form of government is the best which provides the most effectually for a pure selection of these natural aristoi into the offices of government? The artificial aristocracy is a mischievous ingredient in government, and provision should be made to prevent it’s ascendancy.

Because I know how people hate to read those big blocks of quoted text, I’ll explain what Jefferson is saying here:

Nature (in all its wisdom) has determined that certain people will have more talents and virtue than others.  These people will naturally rise to the top of society.  Jefferson wants the state to be ready and waiting for these folk and foster their inclusion into the ruling elite!  The naturally-selected aristocracy, says Jefferson must be separated from the old-world aristocracy (consisting of blood ties and family bonds), as “the wheat from the chaff.”  All of Jefferson’s zeal for localism and independent communities, arises from his desire to see a natural aristocracy replace the previous system in Christendom.

For the most part, his dream has come to fruition, especially in America.

But is this really the way that best fosters nature?  More importantly, is this the most Christian way?

I would argue that Jefferson’s view makes the individual (not the family) the most fundamental unit of society.  The individual lives and moves within the confines of the various systems of governments he finds himself in, but he does so as an individual!

This is in stark contrast to the Biblical idea of society and the Biblical notion that the family is to be the foundational unit of society (not the individual.)  I’ll not attempt to show this point from Scriptures (at least in this blog) and will simply presuppose it for now in order to contrast this view with the view of Jefferson.

On the Biblical view, a family owns property.  God has ordained this to be the case.  In some cases, a family is able to take hold of a very large amount of property.  So much so, in fact, that others (non-members of the family) choose to come and work for the family!  The family then becomes something of an aristocracy.  Those related to the family by blood find themselves in a different position than those merely laboring on the land.  In one sense, they are better off and have more freedoms and privileges.  In another, very profound sense, these children find themselves married to the land, maintaining certain responsibilities and duties toward their workers.

This is a rough sketch (at least in my opinion) of the natural way in which an aristocracy arises in a Christian society.  In his discussion of “natural aristocracy” Jefferson overlooks the importance of the family unit in nature and he overlooks the importance of private property.

Since Jefferson’s system has prevailed, we no longer have an aristocracy of blood who have a personal sense of ownership and pride towards a particular people and location.  Instead, we have an “every-man-for-himself-ism” and those who supposed to represent particular people and places, do so out of desires that are NOT tied to their family interests, but rather to ideological or self interests.  They rule in such a way as to get re-elected, or in such a way as to bring themselves the best benefit.

Much more could be said and one day, I hope to master these arguments and issues.

But for now, I will keep my eyes open for any intellectual who throws off Biblical presuppositions in favor of naturalistic assumptions about reality and I’ll hold their political systems suspect.

Give me Jane Austin (and her characteristic favoring of the aristocracy) over Thomas Jefferson any day!

An Outline of Sanity

Never before have I read an essay that more clearly defines the root problem of contemporary society than when I read the preface to the latest addition of G.K. Chesterton’s “The Outline of Sanity,” written by the directors of IHS press.

The sane people of Christendom have all sorts of pet issues which they attribute to the emergence of our contemporary setting.  For some, it’s the destruction of the family.  For others, it’s the onslaught of feminism.  For yet others, it’s the acceptance of race-mixing, or the control of Jewish influences over our media and economy.

These are all the clicks, jerks, and drool of a clearly insane society.  Does a schizo accuse his voices of causing schizophrenia?  (If he does, it’s because he’s crazy!)  No, the voices are a symptom of sickness every bit as much as race-mixing and the destruction of the family are symptoms of a deeper disease!

And like watching a loved one slowly creep into dementia, we sane Christians have watched the entire European world slip into an insane and nightmarish Hell where men and women are seen as equals, the family; a proposition, and blood ties are abhorred because of make believe sins!

That there is a new order to the world cannot be denied.  Now that the lines are clearly established between new and old, it is easier to look back and diagnose the problems and study the changes in hopes of establishing a new, new world order!

That’s what Chesterton’s book is about, really.  A new way of doing what our Christian ancestors took for granted.  A self-conscious return to an old European, agrarian order, where the trustee family controls the assets of a people and wealth is evenly distributed across the land.

Today, we have all the wealth of the world sifting and sliding into the hands of a small number of elite “capitalists” who live like gods while the rest of us are given an appearance of wealth (at least, some of us are) and freedom.  But the freedom we’re allowed is no real freedom and even that illusion is slipping away.

Families are nothing more than a group of friends living together for mutual benefit.  The differences between men and women are considered of no-effect and to mention them is taboo.  All races of men are equal and the ultimate sin is to claim they are different, or that the white European has some right to exist!  (In fact, the veneration of the negro has become a religion!)

People live in little concrete apartments, stacked on top of one another, with their televisions and internet.  They have no idea who their neighbors are.  They order cardboard food that comes in cardboard boxes and many haven’t seen the sun rise in years!

They live, move, and have their being in the state!  The only distinction among men is between the state and the individual!  That is the new “creator / creature” distinction, for it is by the kindness of the state that we are fed (thank you Uncle Sam for our daily bread!  Ahhh Men!)

But, the IHS Press, building on Chesterton, contrasts this new world order and an agrarian, Christian order:

The Servile State in Agriculture means agri-business and chemical farming.  The Distributist State in Agriculture means small farms and organic techniques.

The Servile State in Commerce means chain stores, poor quality and appalling service.  The Distributist State in Commerce means myriads of small shops, handcrafted quality and the personal touch.

The Servile State in Social Development means huge, sprawling cities and urban deprivation.  The Distributist State in Social Development means the primacy of the countryside and an unparallelled richness of life.

The Servile State in Culture means an imposed artificiality, transient fashions, Hollywood and pop icons.  The Distributist State in Culture means meritocracy, real art, folk music, serious literature and good beer.

The Servile State in the Family means few children, no children, free unions and unnatural unions.  The Distributist State in the Family means hordes of children and the centrality of Sacramental Marriage.

The Servile State in Philosophy means the validity of each and every opinion, and the superiority of the “here and now.”  The Distributist State in Philosophy means Truth, perspective and proportion, and looking towards Eternity.

The Servile State on Man is his promotion as an Individual, evermore aggressive and animalistic.  The Distributist State on Man is his promotion as a personality, evermore co-operative, evermore Christ-like.

The “problem” that spawns all the other problems is the wholesale acceptance, by Europeans, of a new religion.  A religion of progress and intellect.

This new religion was ripe for things like Darwinism, Feminism, Marxism, (and all the other horrible “isms” that we’re afflicted with) and left no room for fairy tales, or the God of miracles believed in by our ancestors.  This is the sort of Satanic world order that demons have wet-dreams about — and all the while, deluded (and quite gnostic) “Christians” enthusiastically cry out for God to “bless America!”

Our religion is one of progress, and our sacraments include eating the body and blood of the negro to atone for the white sins of the white past!  (Of course, neither Chesterton nor IHS press would likely admit anything of the sort in public.)

We have to fight to establish a new, new world order.  One that includes a fair and even distribution of wealth among Biblical trustee families — and only then will we return to sanity.

Thank you God for giving us G. K. Chesterton who provided an outline for how all this might be accomplished.

The Art of Burning Korans

Apparently, burning a few hundred Korans will cause waaaaay more “blowback” than invading Iraq, invading Afghanistan, and spending billions in support of Israel because I don’t hear Dave Petraeus speaking out against the latter.   I don’t hear Obama speaking out against the latter.  I don’t hear Christian ministers speaking out against the latter!

Anti-war advocates have been talking about the negative results of US foreign policy for years! (See Chalmers Johnson’s “Blowback” or Ron Paul’s book: “A Foreign Policy of Freedom.”)

Of course, the US Government can do anything it wants without worry of reprisal.  In fact, suggesting that US foreign policy may have had something to do with the attacks on 9/11 is considered blasphemy these days.

But, let one, insignificant pastor at some unheard of church down in Florida commit to burning a few hundred Korans.

All of a sudden, that one act is the worse possible thing that could ever occur!

Is anyone fooled by this hypocritical nonsense?

Dem Dang Muslims

The neo-conservative propaganda machine is working overtime to instill an anti-Muslim ideal in the minds of Americans.  Ask the average American about Islam, (at least, the average Southern, white Christian) and he’ll say:  “Dem dang Mooslems is out to get us and kill all ‘mericans!  We should bomb all of em!”

I have a few problems with this:

1) Muslims present the average American Christian with a problem. On the one hand, the American Christian wants to equate his state and his religion in some ambiguous way, but on the other, he frowns on his state’s support of other religions. To be consistent, the American either must fully accept Muslim immigration, and ultimately agree that an America with all Muslims (as long as they respected the free market and adhered, in some way, to the constitution) is just as acceptable as an America with all Christians; or, he must reject America herself and admit that the nation is not a Biblical nation (or at least push for reforms to the system that would ensure that only Christians maintain control of local, state, and federal governments.)

2) Another thing Americans will NEVER EVER do is suggest that perhaps Islam is not the problem, but rather, Arabs are. They’ve been trained, since they were babes, not to think such things. So, again, as in 1, we have the odd position of the (white) American Christian having to admit that an all Arab America is perfectly fine, as long as the Arabs held to the correct abstract ideals…but simultaneously, they find themselves rejecting immigration because, on some deep level, self-preservation instincts are still alive and well.

3) This observation is related to the first two. Americans, especially the modern-day neo-conservatives, love discussing Islam on the colloquial level. The neo-con war-machine has been busy painting the religion as the greatest enemy of Christendom and America since that dastardly fiend, Hitler!

So, we see the neo-conservatives in the odd position of having to reject Islam and Muslims on the one hand…and yet, on the other hand, support the neo-con war effort that boasts all sorts of Muslim nations as allies.   For example, since the Wiki Leaks scandal, the public was exposed to how terrible the war in Afghanistan is, and so the war-machine is trying to subtly-spin it as a war for woman’s liberation! This is odd, however, because U.S. allies like the Tajiks, Uzbeks and Hazara, mistreat their women just as bad, if not worse than the Taliban!

(By the way, “mistreating women” means, insisting on a patriarchal society. If we followed the Bible consistently, perhaps our nation will get invaded by good-natured Satanists who want to liberate our women?)

The Muslims, as a people, have a religious worldview, albeit a bastardized one.  But what they see through their foggy lens is much to be preferred over the blindness of the neo-conservative American.   At least the Muslims can see that democracy is, itself an evil.

The Michael Hoffman Playlist

A few years ago I noticed a trend in various, seemingly unrelated, comedy shows and movies.

A certain gag took place across different mediums, among different people, and even in real life.  I wanted to name this gag, to classify it, study it, and investigate how such a thing is spread through society.

I emailed blogger Tim Harris to get his opinion.  He suggested that I call these “gags” something like:  “Humor archetypes.”

I named this particular humor archetype:  “pushing the offense.”

Person A says something off-hand that seems innocent, but because of the context of the situation, is very offensive to Person B.  Person B makes his or her dislike known, only to have Person A continue re-stating the original offensive point over and over in language that becomes more and more candid…while person B becomes irate.

A common variation to this archetype is to have person B entirely absent.  Standing in for person B, is society at large.  Person A will say something that is commonly accepted as taboo or mildly offensive to the target audience (person B) and then continue pushing the offensive point using various different synonyms.

I first saw this in the movie “Run Fat Boy Run” where the main character (played by Simon Pegg) is in a clothing store, scratching his crotch.  When the posh owner asks him what is happening…notice how Pegg candidly says “scrotal zone.”  This is the textbook case of “pushing the offense.”

After seeing “Run Fatboy Run”, I heard the comedian Ryan Stiles (Drew Cary Show, and Whose Line is it) “push the offense” in a particular VH1 special where various comedians were providing commentary for some song or other.  I heard it being used again by a character in MTV’s “Real World.”  In one season, an effeminate Mormon guy is riding in the car with a feminist, and a transsexual, and he “pushes the offense” with them, really pissing off the feminist.  Later on, a coworker in my office actually “pushed the offense” in a casual discussion…that’s when I decided to track this down and name it!

Once I began noticing humor archetypes, I started seeing them all over the place, especially in casual conversation.  Some people, it seems, are more prone to pick these things up and incorporate them into their thinking and vocabulary.

Along with his advice about calling these gags “humor archetypes” Mr. Harris suggested that I check out Michael Hoffman’s book, “Secret Societies and Psychological Warfare.” So, I purchased the book, and began reading.

Hoffman’s style is unusual, and I had trouble following all his metaphors and tricky wording.  What was worse, the man seemed off his rocker.  I mean…a few pages into the book, and you learn that seemingly innocent bits of vandalism are actually, powerful masonic symbols having to do with the inauguration mankind into an evil age!

I was repulsed and put the book down.  I didn’t pick it up again until recently (a few years later) when…on a whim, I randomly grabbed Hoffman’s book off the shelf.

Since first reading it, I have come to view the world in…what I hope…is a consistently Christian way.  Modern Americans are becoming “atomized.”  In other words, all the particulars of our experience…(everything we see, taste, hear, smell, etc.)…are being progressively internalized; self-consciously processed subjectively to the detriment of natural order.

Cornelius Van Til calls this a “descent into the void.”  Man-kind is being coaxed, and coached into the void.

When I started reading Hoffman’s book again, I had a better grasp on my Christian worldview, and noticed that Hoffman was arguing for exactly the same thing!  Once I figured out what some of his more cryptic metaphors meant, I got on board.  For instance…when Rushdoony or Van Til talk about “atomizing of the culture”…Hoffman uses terms like “alchemy”…which means, a concerted effort to change the nature of man from base material, into something greater!  In this instance, “greater” means…something less natural, and more in conformity with the mind of man.

Man, after all, IS the savior of himself, right?  At least, that’s the message I’ve long believed Satan is pushing.  He even used that argument in the Garden of Eden!

Hoffman realizes how the “cryptocracy” uses mass-media to perpetuate memes (or social archetypes, humor archetypes, etc.) through society.  He traces this concept (what he calls “Twilight Language”), connects the dots behind it, and  comes to some very disturbing conclusions.

So…by way of an official apology to Mr. Hoffman, (for thinking he was crazy and neglecting his work), I’ve put together a playlist of songs in his honor.  I hope to listen to them as I drive around DC contemplating his disturbing conclusions.  By the way…I’ll flip the bird to a masonic memorial in your name Mr. Hoffman!

The Michael Hoffman Playlist: (WARNING:  Not all songs are suited for the whole family, some have inappropriate language and harsh themes.  Some seem to praise Satan or the Cryptocracy, but I feel they actually expose them or promote a general attitude of distaste towards them.)

Killuminati – Tupac

Mr. Crowley – Ozzy

For What it’s Worth – Buffalo Springfield  (I was listening to this as I wrote the blog…what a great song!)

Paranoia Attack – The Faint

Sympathy for the Devil – Guns N Roses (I know other people do the song, but, I like this version best.)

It’s All in Your Head – Diamond Rio

Ruled by Secrecy – Muse

Everything Under the Stars – Fun Loving Criminals (From the Titan AE Soundtrack.  Notice the ironic band name!)

Helter Skelter – Aerosmith (I like the Aerosmith version best…though Motley Crue comes in a close second.)

Paranoid – Black Sabbath

Jack the Ripper – Morrissey  (According to Hoffman, the Ripper murders were a series of a Masonic ritual killings involving the highest levels of government and police.)

Enjoy!

And, God help us all if Hoffman is even half right about anything…

Joel McDurmon on Immigration

With the hot topic of immigration buzzing around office break-rooms, barbershops, and meeting places the country over…I’ve had ample opportunity to study self-contradictory sentiments.*

On the one hand white folk want to halt the flood o’ mud…and on the other, they want to be small government “conservatives.”  Yet the former outweighs the latter in strides, and so we see the routine and public defense of statism.**

It’s refreshing, then, to hear someone in a more “main-stream” organization discuss the matter from sound, Biblical principles!

American Vision’s Joel McDurmon has recently completed a three part video series where he discusses immigration in light of the Bible. We (as individuals who are self-conscious of our racial identity) realize that this sort of discussion will necessarily lead directly to troubled waters! Who wants to put their reputation, career, friendships or family on the line by taking (what is considered now’a'days to be,) an ultra-unpopular stand on matters of immigration, nationhood, and Biblical law?

Not many like that out there.

That’s why I had a heavy heart as I clicked the play button on the first of Mr. McDurmon’s videos. I suspected a selling-out of kith and kin…ambiguous definitions of nationhood, and a proper bashing of antique European ideals…all supported by some pop-egalitarian re-working of what is, otherwise, very clear Biblical testimony.***

But, my suspicions proved wrong! In fact, much of what Mr. McDurmon said highlighted for me a way forward against ideals of propositional nations, miscegenation, and immigration from a Biblical foundation! While true, he avoids controversial discussions of “nationhood” and race, he nevertheless makes some important observations without selling out a Biblical view of family.

The theme of McDurmon’s discussion is that the state has too much authority in controlling immigration, and that immigration itself (according to the Bible) is to be governed by individual property owners. I encourage everyone to watch all three videos (linked to below) but this theme is especially clarified in the third clip where he sums everything up.

He concludes with this statement…which may hint at a kinist position?:

“…That’s the problem, is these social welfare programs! That’s the problem, is the state playing God and provider! That’s the problem with illegal immigration! If we got rid of that, and the state reverted back to simply protecting private property, we would have a whole different scenario. We would have a freer scenario. And of course, there would be issues of mass migrations, maybe? I don’t know…over time. But if we had a different view of private property ourselves and legacy and children, that really wouldn’t be an issue. But…that’s a whole different discussion. So. What makes illegal immigration illegal? Well, it’s because the state is in an improper role. The state is too big and too powerful and has taken over the situation.”

In the modern mind, the state defines (by fiat declaration) what is or is not a nation…and thus, it is the state’s job to determine immigration policy. It is also, apparently, the job of the state to define (by fiat declaration) what is or is not a family…both positions are blasphemous.

I was greatly encouraged by Mr. McDurmon’s discussion…and I hope others can appreciate them as well.

Part 1 – Does the Bible Teach Open Borders?

Part 2 – Immigration and the Bible

Part 3 – Welfare, Border Control, and the Bible

*(It seems that immigration topics slip under, over, or around the boarders of high-society and take the place of well-meaning, native conversations. It’s often pointed out, for example, that the weather is now too good to be discussed by most people and so illegal immigration moves in to perform conversational jobs in its place!)

**(For an example of this hypocrisy, listen to Rush Limbaugh for five minutes. He will rail against big government, but then when he discusses the immigration issue, he rails for state-controlled measures. The state is Mr. Limbaugh’s final authority in this matter.)

***(Ok…to be honest, I didn’t REALLY expect this from Mr. McDurmon, but I didn’t see how he could say anything else and keep his job.)

Defending Mary Jane

THE ARGUMENT AGAINST MARYJANE:

“What does the Bible say about using drugs and alcohol, other than for diseases and cooking?”

In English translations, there is no verse of Scripture that clearly and specifically addresses the use of recreational or hallucinogenic drugs, but we will see that the Greek word pharmakeia does refer to this. There are, however, quite a few verses that speak to the wrong use of alcoholic beverages, which produces a similarly altered MENTAL STATE [my capitalization].

Let us look at a few of them to give us a framework to examine this topic.

Ephesians 5:18 (NKJ)
And do not be drunk with wine, in which is dissipation [the Greek word for “dissipation” means “an abandoned, dissolute life; profligacy; prodigality”].

Proverbs 23:21a (NKJ)
For the drunkard and the glutton will come to poverty.

1 Corinthians 5:11
But now I am writing you that you must not associate with anyone who calls himself a brother but is sexually immoral or greedy, an idolater or a slanderer, a drunkard or a swindler. With such a man do not even eat.

Despite what some Christians teach, there is no prohibition in God’s Word against drinking alcoholic beverages. It is not a sin to drink beer, or even whiskey. There is, however, a clear prohibition against getting drunk.
Each of us must choose for ourselves how we relate to “booze,” but we have no biblical basis to think less of our brethren in Christ who enjoy a drink once in a while, but do not get drunk.

Why does God tell us not to get drunk?

Because life is a spiritual battle, and we must be self-controlled and alert (1 Thess. 5:6). First, we need to be alert in order to serve God. God wants us constantly tuned into Him, and people have needs at very unexpected times. The servant of God is always “on call,” and must be ready and willing to serve. Second, our enemy, the Devil, prowls around like a roaring lion looking for someone to devour (1 Pet. 5:8). Satan’s evil spirits usually infiltrate people through their minds, and Scripture is replete with instructions about properly managing our minds by controlling our thoughts and making them godly thoughts.

The Bible puts using drugs in the same category as getting drunk (Gal. 5:19-21): both are forbidden by God because of what they do to the individual personally, and how they make him unfit to minister to others.

Drugs used to alter one’s mental state and thus “escape reality” do the same thing that excess alcohol does, that is, they render a person “out of control” of his mind. As with alcohol, the individual who is “high” on drugs is in no position to fulfill the command to “be alert and self-controlled.” Many drugs are hallucinogenic, and a hallucination is “a false notion, belief, or impression; illusion; or delusion.” In the Bible, the Greek word for “truth” means “reality.”

Satan’s goal is to get people to act upon a false reality.

http://www.truthortradition.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=1033

SHOTGUN’S DEFENSE OF MARY JANE:

I’ll restate the arguments as best as possible so that we can clearly see the fallacies:

(1): Altered mental states are forbidden: (1 Thess 5:6.)
(2): Drugs cause altered mental states.

Conclusion:

(C): Drugs are forbidden.

This is formally valid. But, are the premises true?

Let’s examine (1):

First: 1 Thessalonians 5:6, upon closer examination, cannot mean that ALL altered mental states are forbidden. Paul is discussing the end times and is warning Christians to be ready. He was not laying down a law for daily life. He was drawing a parallel between rabble-rousers who lay around drunk all night, and non-believers. “Non-believers are like drunkards at night who have no idea that the day is coming!” This should not be the attitude of Christians who live in the light…who KNOW what is coming. We should be alert, and ready for it. This verse simply cannot be used to claim that “all altered mental states are wrong.”

Secondly: IF 1 Thessalonians 5:6 WAS to be taken viciously literal…then it would necessarily outlaw ALL altered mental-states. This means, no more sleeping. No more laughing gas at the dentist office. (The article Mr. Seattle posted allows for medicinal drugs but never demonstrates why medicinal drugs are precluded from a viciously literal interpretation of 1 Thessalonians 5:6.)

Premise (2) is problematic because we have to clearly define what it means to have an altered mental state…and what constitutes a drug. People on certain types of acid or herbs (like salvia) cannot reason coherently during the trip, however marijuana does not cause this sort of altered state. So, the question must be asked if Mr. Seattle’s cited argument is even relevant to this thread at all? Does the Bible outlaw getting high off of sunshine? (Sunshine on some people’s shoulders makes them happy, and sunshine in their eyes, gets them high!) Additionally, do all drugs alter mental states? I’ve never gotten a buzz from brushing my teeth.

There is another argument in Mr. Seattle’s citation:

(1) The Bible explicitly regulates the use of alcohol.
(2) Drugs alter mental states in the same way that alcohol does.

(C): The regulations for alcohol in the Bible also apply to drugs.

Unlike the first argument, this argument is not formally valid. The conclusion does not follow from the premises. The Bible may regulate drunkenness, but that doesn’t automatically mean that drugs (or especially of concern in our case; marijuana) are under the same restrictions. The fact that drugs react similarly to alcohol, does not, in and of itself, automatically require that the same restrictions apply to both.

Another argument attempted was this:

(1) The word ‘pharmakeia’ means sorcery, and also means drugs.
(2) The Bible explicitly outlaws sorcery.

(C): Therefore, the Bible explicitly outlaws drugs.

This is a formally valid argument, but premise 1 is faulty.

The Greek term ‘pharmakeia” applies to specific cultural contexts and the using of concoctions in pagan ceremonies. In this case, the Christian should view the concoctions present in the ceremonies the same way he or she views food sacrificed to idols. To make premise (1) valid, much work needs to be done to demonstrate exactly what sort of concoction, and in exactly what sort of contexts is meant.

Government School is Rape

Man is more than an existing being who is in process of making and defining himself; he has already been made and defined by God. Thus, the psychology of man posited by Freud, or by Sartre, and others, is fallacious. Man’s nature is neither fixed by an evolutionary past, nor an open question to be determined by man. It is a given fact from God. – R.J. Rushdoony ‘Revolt Against Maturity’ pg. 6

Rushdoony’s description of a Christian view of man stands in direct contrast to the view of humanists.

The humanist wishes to use the power of the state to coerce children; to mold them into a desired image. “Man’s nature is plastic” says the humanist.

Consider John Dewey’s statement:

We who now live are parts of a humanity that extends into the remote past, a humanity that has interacted with nature. The things in civilization we most prize are not of ourselves. They exist by grace of the doings and sufferings of the continuous human community in which we are a link. Ours is the responsibility of conserving, transmitting, rectifying and expanding the heritage of values we have received that those who come after us may receive it more solid and secure…- cited in ‘Clergy in the Classroom’ from “A Common Faith” pg. 87

Dewey is being consistent with the likes of Sartre, Rousseau, and Plato. The State can and MUST reshape man into whatever image man so desires! Man’s nature is plastic.

Christians deny this. The Christian claims that it is the job of the Holy Spirit alone to change man’s nature. Man (as Rushdoony highlights above) is not in a process of becoming…he is already made! It is a given fact of God! (I’m not speaking here of progressive sanctification or physical growth, but rather of psychological development…a change in nature.)

Deny it all we like, the fact remains that the Humanists seem to have succeeded in changing the nature of man. Our society has progressively been molded into the desired shape of the humanists. How does the Christian respond to this seeming contradiction?

After a lot of reflection, I realized the true nature of what is happening in Government schools:

Man’s nature is not plastic as the humanists claim. However, it still remains possible for Christians to act contrary to their regenerated consciences. This happens all the time. (Romans 7:14)  This can happen so often that the conscience of the Christian becomes seared, as with a hot iron! He no longer feels the wrongness of what he does. He no longer has guilt for what he does. (This is Freud’s method for dealing with guilt!)

Government school is the systematic searing of a Christian child’s conscience.

It is being done purposefully, systematically, and precisely.

No Christian argues for the Satanic rape of their own child.

Shame on the Christians who support it.