Just after a bit of rain
on a hazy summer day,
at the edge where yard and hedge,
meet sullen forest ways,

Where grass of proper height,
meets crooked trees and shaded light,
and practical ditches or well-dug nooks,
become mossy banks and bubbling brooks,

Where the ordered world of modern folk,
Breaks upon the glade,
past the briars, where trees conspire
in sunbeams among the shade,

Lies the world of fairy,
In all its clever wonder
For men to see, (if it can be seen)
What this world will offer.

But some will say “A thousand times
I’ve walked along this way
and never once, no not once,
have the fairies come out to play!”

When the politician rambles,
About what his people want,
He pretends they’re out there living
Exactly as he thought.

And when the economist speaks
Of what living people do
his ideas are told to all the world
As if he really knew.

The historians are no better,
because out of all that’s been,
They choose one or two then think them through
and say “Such does all truth end!”

These men have walked through woods
But have never seen a fairy,
Strolling with arrogance along the paths
They return to a world that’s dreary.

“Where is the world of spirit” they ask?
“What’s happened to all the magic?”
They’ve moved themselves from where fairies dwell,
And replaced the sprites with fractions!

It is the printing press, if anything
That ushers the fairies away.
It drives the minds of men and times,
and a naive heart, betrays.

But no one controls everything
And even empires have their bounds.
Where those ends meet the wild retreats,
It’s there that fairies are found.

With all the Republican debates lately, I’ve established a routine.  On debate nights, I’ll grab a sub, bring it home and eat while I’m watching the action.  (For those of you wondering how anyone can eat while listening to so much filth, well, I have a strong stomach.)

There was a surprise waiting for me at the local Subway though.  Four bus loads of Marines unloaded (right as I arrived) and quickly filled the restaurant.  Although none of them mentioned where they were going, I suspect they were part of a squadron, heading up to Norfolk to deploy on one of the carriers — likely heading to the Gulf.

This much of a military presence is unheard of in my town and the locals were intimidated.  One old lady walked into the Subway after seeing me enter and stuck close to my side.  Another old couple walked up to the door, offered a few confused glances, then left.  Having spent ten years in the Navy, often working in joint-environments with Marines, I was used to their lingo, attitudes and mannerisms and felt protective of the woman standing next to me.

I knew what she was feeling.

She was frightened of the men towering around her — frightened of the power they represented and could bring to bear against her at the slightest provocation.  These men, she believed, would pounce on her without remorse and bring swift violence to her and her loved ones, all for the sake of some nameless bureaucrat.   She was looking at a faceless machine — mechanistic irrationalism wrapped in trusted white skin (yes, all but one of the Marines in the restaurant were white.)

Long long ago (it seems) when I was young and naive, I dreamed of protecting the innocent, standing up for the down-trodden and being a champion of the hearth-fire!  (Though I wouldn’t have known how to say it.)  I joined the Navy with the express purpose of being a Navy SEAL.  I wanted to be the warrior poet; the Christian knight who saw the world aright and fought for the good.  I remember praying earnestly, asking God to “make me right!”

Well, I suppose He has.  (At least, I’m drifting in the right direction, I hope.)

Drifting toward the “right” required that I give up my military service.  I was increasingly unhappy serving a Satanic state and saw it as counter-productive to my growing desires as a racially self-conscious white Christian.

When I finally got out (about a year ago), I was a man without purpose in a harsh world.  Even as a kid all my daydreams were of heroism and fighting for the good — contending against evil and protecting the hearth-fire.  But with my honorable-discharge came the truth that I would never be a warrior — I’d never get a parade of honor or the chance to stand against great odds and fight with brave men.   Over the past few months, I had resigned myself to the loss of those things.

But today, in that Subway, standing between the old lady and the gang of thugs (who, if ordered, would stomp her face in without question), some of my warrior spirit reasserted itself.

Who am I if not a fighter of some sort?

Well, I think this warrior spirit is why I’ve always been so attracted to apologetics.   Silencing the foolish talk of unbelief!  When an arrogant God-hater so-casually asserts blasphemy in the public square, something inside me demands a response.  He’s talking about *my* God, whom I love dearly and he will pay dearly for his blasphemy!

I discovered philosophy and the transcendental apologetic method of Cornelius Van Til.  Armed with these arguments, I could deconstruct anyone’s position and leave them sputtering, cursing, or at best: in silence.

There’s a problem with all this, however.

After a few years of reading “Cambria Will Not Yield,” I’ve become convinced that one of the main problems with Western civilization is the reliance on the intellect.  The “rationalizing” of the Faith has lead to its destruction and now all we have is an empty shell, filled by religious rites and ceremonies that retain the name and appearance of Christendom, but have nothing of its spirit.  It’s not the Holy Spirit behind modern alter-calls, but an unholy one!

“It’s the philosophers!  It’s the philosophers!” says Mr. Cambria.

And I agree…Mr. Cambria has yet to write anything that I disagree with (and if I ever do, then I’ve made a mistake in my thinking.)

But, this is hard for someone like me.

I’m no poet.  I’ve day-dreamed about writing novels and sparking a new Southern Renaissance.  I’ve dreamed about joining the ranks of Stark Young, Donald Davidson, Thomas Nelson Page, and others.  I’ve dreamed about reaching people with my words and writing poems that are so powerful, they break through years of indoctrination and reach a person’s heart…

…but, seriously: as anyone who reads my blog knows, I’m never going to be a great writer.  My inspiration comes in spurts.  If I read a great book, (like a John Buchan classic), I can write like the author for a few weeks, but it fades away over time.  Some days I can’t write worth anything.

But, philosophy — I’m always philosophizing.  I can be half-asleep at two in the morning and have great epiphanies.  I can see 12 intricate, complex distinctions in what others think of as a simple concept.

You can’t tell it from my blog (since I don’t write philosophical arguments that often), but I do get a thrill from it.  My best work is done in live, apologetic situations.  I can think on my feet, counter proposals and criticize arguments.

This is what I do.

This is the way I’ve been able to stay sane after having to give up a military life.  This is how I fight Satan.

In a democracy, men are abstracted from context and physical might is no longer as important as intellectual might.

The knight has been replaced by the rhetorician.

I hate it.  I don’t like democracy.  I despise the abstraction of man and the propositionalizing of life!  But that’s how history has unfolded and it just so happens that I’m pretty good at playing the Satanists’ game.  (At least:  I think I can honestly appraise myself as a decent rhetorician without being arrogant.)

I want this blog to be a question:

“What place does philosophy and philosophical argument have for a Kinist?”

I imagine the poor kinist who is stuck with the gift of philosophizing should think of it like the noble hit-man in all these Hollywood movies thinks about his job.  After awhile, he knows its demoralizing and wrong, but nevertheless, it’s what he’s good at and how he makes his living — at least until he’s asked to take out a woman he ends up falling in love with, and then has to turn on his Agency, causing them to hire other hit-men to take him out and a battle ensues.

I wish I could be a member of an elite fighting unit, honor-bound to serve a Godly nation of my kinsmen.

I wish I could be a poet or a wordsmyth with incredible talent.

I’d even be happy as a farmer who has never had to worry about hammering guns into plows, because he’s always had plows and never needed the guns.

But I’m none of those things.

I do have a fierce love for a person…my Father, my King, my God.

And this love is tempered by (and demands) a respect for my elders in the Faith and their writings and their attitudes.  I’m not interested in forming my own theological system or forging new philosophical ground.  I don’t want to be a heretic.

It’s this fierce love for a God (who became flesh), that will keep the Kinist philosopher grounded and allow us to avoid the tragic pitfalls of “rationalism” and a worship of the intellect that have captured the West.

Ours is a deconstructive effort — the tearing down of strongholds…the confounding of arguments and the resisting of every power and ideology that sets itself up against our God, our Blood and our Honor!

We’ll let the poets and the passionate acts of Christian hearts do the building…

Of course, they rarely attack my actual position.  Usually it’s some straw-man or other in the cross-hairs.  (My ideological ilk aren’t important enough to warrant a mention.)  One of the biggest arguments I hear (and I hear it constantly) is that “race” doesn’t exist.  Presumably, the person making this argument supposes that if “race” doesn’t exist, then my position (as a racial-nationalist) is nonsensical.

Guy P. Harrison argues this way in his book “Race and Reality.”

Suffering through Harrison’s radical egalitarianism was almost too much to bear, but then I got to chapter four.  He called it:  “Black Men Can’t Jump.”   Surprisingly, Harrison documents the general trend of white-dominance in the sport of high-jumping.  He goes on to detail the average trend of white dominance in many sporting events, like power-lifting.

In the end, he explains away the facts by appealing to white cultural dominance — the poor negros haven’t had great opportunities like evil, establishment WASPS have had, so of course they haven’t been able to perform as well.

That (frankly ridiculous) argument aside (I may address it in a future blog), I’d like to quote (extensively) from chapter 4 of Harrison’s book.

Despite the popular myths about black physical superiority, the facts, it seems, suggest otherwise.

“Here’s something interesting about race and sports that you may not be aware of:  black men can’t jump.  That’s right:  when it comes to leaping ability, black people are positively lead footed compared to white people…Proof of this can be found in the objective results of international sports competitions.  If one wants to determine who the best jumpers are, where better to look than high jump competitions, events participated in by virtually all races and countries?  The results speak for themselves.  Seven of the ten best high jumpers of all time (based on height cleared) are white.  Only three are black. 1

A review of the Track and Field News World Rankings for this event from 1947 through 2002 also shows clear white domination.  These rankings are widely respected and cited by knowledgeable people within the track and field community.  They are created by votes from experts who base their selections on marks, honors won, and win-loss record for the season.  Although black athletes have topped the rankings in some years, the overall pattern is clear.  White men are the world’s best high jumpers.  A review of the world rankings for women (1956-2002) turns up the same pattern.  White women have been the best female high jumpers by far. 2

Nothing appears to be likely to change any time soon.  Only four black athletes are listed among the fifteen best male outdoor high jump performers for 2008.  The top four jumpers for the year are white.  Overall, ten of the fifteen are white.  (One is Brazilian.  I will leave it to others to assign him to a race.)  Finally, it is worth noting that the best American jumper in 2008 was white Texas native Dusty Jonas.  That must be an odd fact to swallow for all the Americans who believe white people are genetically deficient in jumping ability. 3

Most revealing of all are the results of Olympic high jump finals.  These are the big tests, the greatest international showdowns between the planet’s greatest human flyers.  After more than two centuries of competitions, however, only a few African Americans and one dark-skinned Cuban have ever won gold medals.  Every other winner has been white.  Furthermore, no black African athlete has ever won an Olympic high jump medal of any kind. 4

This is the one international competition that directly measures jumping ability and when the biggest prize of all, an Olympic gold medal, has been on the table, white athletes have outperformed black athletes almost every time.

1.  Jim Rorick, “World Outdoor All-Time List — Men, 2008″ Track & Field News, January 13, 2009.

2.  Track & Field News World Rankings, “All-Time World Rankings — Women’s High Jump, 2002,” Track & Field News, 2002.

3.  International Association of Athletics Federations, “IAAF World List — High Jump 2008,” Feb 20, 2009.

4.  List of high jump gold medalists available on DatabaseOlympics.com, 2009.

I heard a story today that describes the typical family in my area.

During deer season, the roads are lined with pickup trucks.  Hunters, decked in camouflage pile out and congregate in groups.  By law, they have to wear bright orange hats or vests — thank God the bureaucrats in Raleigh are watching out for us, right?  Nothing in nature is neon-orange, so I have no idea what the hunters hope to accomplish with their Real-Tree cammo.

I do know that during hunting season, it’s popular to wear hunting-clothes to school or work (if you can wear such things to work.)  You can tell who the white-men are in one glance.  Country-girls, as well, have taken to the practice and I have to say, I kind of like it.

People get the Real-Tree brand at stores like “Bass Pro Shop” and “Sports Authority” (though it’s also available at Wal-Marts in the hunting section.)  These stores sell to white folks (in general) who are interested in the outdoors.  In addition to their recreational inventory, they have a large selection of clothes you can only get at these places.  That it’s turned into a sort of fashion-trend among white-folks gives me hope that for now, at least, there remains some sort of social cohesion among our folk.

And if anyone thinks that hunting (as a sport) cannot possibly be so important to people in North Carolina that it has influenced local fashion, well, let me continue my story:

A lot of hunting is done by dog.  The hunter attaches radio-transmitters to the dog’s collar and watches a digital display of the landscape.  When the dogs find a deer, they pursue and the hunter can watch it all from the warmth of the truck.  The dogs are trained to route the deer back to the hunter for the killing shot.

This sort of hunting requires well-trained dogs, for obvious reasons, although one of the less-obvious has to do with property-rights.  To hunt any bit of land, you have to have the permission of the owner (usually in writing.)  If the dog strays off the authorized plot and into unauthorized territory, it could turn into a problematic situation very quickly — and that’s exactly what happened recently.

Some hunters don’t like the radio-tracking method of hunting.  It’s too high-tech and borderline cowardly.  True hunting involves getting out into the woods, tracking, climbing, crawling, being in the wilderness among the animals!  Sitting in a pickup truck waiting for your dogs to do all the work strikes these guys as unfair.

Plus, the dogs chase after bucks (apparently).

Or, at least, that’s the claim (though I haven’t ever heard of dogs exclusively chasing buck, before.)

In one area of our county, a family of traditional hunters live side-by-side with a large area of land that is often hunted by folks using dogs with radio-transmitters — much to the chagrin of the traditional hunters.  They complained, time and again, that the dogs were running all the buck off their land!

This is a grave offense.

Warnings were given:  “Do NOT run dogs on our property!”

Well, sure enough, it was bound to happen.  A rowdy hound disobeyed orders and strayed onto the property.  Out of nowhere came a volley of shotgun blasts!  BOOM BOOM!

There’s not enough evidence to indict anyone for the crime of “cruelty to animals” (an ironic charge coming from hunters), but, suffice it to say:  deer are serious business around these-part (as one hound has learned the hard way.  He survived, but had to spend the weekend licking his wounds to get out all the bird-shot.)

I guess the Apostle knew what he was talking about.  This sort of thing makes a mockery out of our people, though in one respect, it’s an endearing one:

“¹ If any of you has a dispute with another, do you dare to take it before the ungodly for judgment instead of before the Lord’s people? ² Or do you not know that the Lord’s people will judge the world? And if you are to judge the world, are you not competent to judge trivial cases? ³ Do you not know that we will judge angels? How much more the things of this life! ⁴ Therefore, if you have disputes about such matters, do you ask for a ruling from those whose way of life is scorned in the church? ⁵ I say this to shame you. Is it possible that there is nobody among you wise enough to judge a dispute between believers? ⁶ But instead, one brother takes another to court—and this in front of unbelievers!

The moral of the story (if there is a moral) is this:  be careful, white man, what you do when dear are involved.  You don’t want to end up like this guy:

Early last year I stopped at a hole-in-the-wall gas-station on the outskirts of Washington North Carolina — a small town in the middle of the eastern part of the state.

A beautiful young blond assisted me at the register.  She must have been about sixteen, had bright blue eyes and a southern accent that melted my heart.

She was a flower growing among filthy scoundrels.

Hovering near at hand (with lust in their eyes) was an assortment of large negros.  One must have been six-five and weighed close to four-hundred pounds.  He was wearing an apron and I assumed he worked at the grill.  Another of the negros was dressed as if he too worked at the store.  The third I took for a lackey, hanging out with his pals.

Presiding over them was an old white woman with a raspy, ciggarette-ruined voice.  She was overweight and smelled so strong, I could distinguish her from the cloud of afro-sheen.   To add to her villany, she was flirting with the negros — touching their arms, giggling at inappropriate moments and displaying a disregard for all the propriety a white lady (in her late fifties) should observe.

My heart went out to the poor girl at the register.  I’ve mentioned her to some of my friends and they’ve accused me of having inappropriate sexual feelings for the girl (jokingly, of course — though I didn’t think very highly of the joke.)

No, my attraction isn’t depraved or sinful; I believe my concern for the girl arises from a heart that’s still pumping (even if weakly, at times.)  This poor girl has no chance in the world unless God rains down a miracle.

After repeated visits to the store, I found out that the old woman was the girl’s grandmother.  Despite her flirtation with the negros, she had shacked up with some low-class red-neck who carried on a conversation with me once, while I was pumping gas.

“The owner of this store done tryin’ ta screw us over, my girl-fren n’ me!” he declared, referring to the old woman as his girl-friend.

Apparently, honest work was below this man and he displayed an unfortunate belief in the class-theory of Marxism.  “The evil coporations were taking undue advantage of him and his girlfriend.”

I can only guess what this poor girl’s homelife is like and after talking with her grandmother’s live-in boyfriend, I was all the more convinced that I should do something — interject myself into the girl’s life somehow…

…but what to do?

I don’t live near Washington NC and so I can’t be a regular part of her life.  I don’t have enough money to hire her or create a new life for her somewhere else (and even if I did, I’m not convinced that would be healthy.  It seems a little presumptuous.)  Sharing the Gospel with her would be all but worthless since she’s likely so biased about Christianity that it would take years of teaching to help her see the true state of theology, the world and her situation in it.

So, what to do?

I decided awhile back that I’d give her a copy of Sheridan Le Fanu’s “Uncle Silas” and address it to her from an “anonymous benefactor who has a special interest in your well-being and wishes to see your life resolve itself into a happy set of circumstances, just like the heroine in this novel.”

But, over the months other things came up and I forgot about all this.  Even when I thought about it from time to time, I wasn’t convinced it would be the best course of action.

Today, I happened through Washington NC again and stopped at the store to check in on her.

The beautiful blond-haired, blue-eyed girl, had her hair up in some style that is popular among negresses.  Her lip was pierced in a gaudy and unappealing fashion and her fingernails were covered in large, brightly-colored fake-nails (also popular among the negresses.)

I talked with her a little more and heard subtle (though sinister) hints of afro-slang in her vocabulary.

The rage I have towards Satan on behalf of this girl is unspeakable.  Something has to be done.

And I feel like a helpless observer.

So, please tell me, ye educated bloggers (and even ye uneducated who, nevertheless, have beating-hearts)…

What should I do?

]]> http://shotgunwildatheart.wordpress.com/2012/01/22/little-girl-lost/feed/ 13 shotgunwildatheart http://shotgunwildatheart.wordpress.com/2012/01/15/why-kinists-gotta-be-so-mean/ http://shotgunwildatheart.wordpress.com/2012/01/15/why-kinists-gotta-be-so-mean/#comments Sun, 15 Jan 2012 16:37:09 +0000 shotgunwildatheart http://shotgunwildatheart.wordpress.com/?p=2447 ]]>

A friend recently asked me the following:

Do the kinists have a hatred for other races? I see… feel… their animosity towards mexicans, blacks, arabians… I thought kinism was just about preserving the natural races that God gave us. Maybe I’ve missed the point all along?

“Kinism” with all its polish is what you’ll see over at “Faith & Heritage” and is something like what you’ve said:  concern for preserving and maintaining God-ordained distinctions (especially racial) among men.

(Most Kinists are also ethnic-nationalists of some sort, meaning:  we believe ethnically-homogenous nation-states — run by Biblical law — are the normative state of man.)

Towards that end, we have various non-white friends now claiming to be Kinists.  We’re hoping to recruit more non-whites to the Kinist cause, but as you can imagine:  given the nature of Kinism, we’re more concerned with our own folk.  A Kinist thinks of this sort of outreach as a form of missionary work.  Christ commands us to “go into all the nations, preaching what I have taught you.”  So, if there are any of us with a missionary spirit (I’ve sometimes been compelled to do it) then we’ll reach out to other racial communities.

I’ve been witnessing to blacks on Pal Talk along these lines.  The black community is ripe for a truly Christian view of race and nationalism.  For so long they’ve been inundated with false views like Marxism and black liberation theology.  They need a strong presentation of Kinism.

All that said, I need to raise two issues:

1.  When we wake up from the indoctrination and lies of pop-culture and begin respecting God-ordained distinctions among men, we start thinking in terms of those distinctions.  We begin talking about classes of people.  For example, we can talk about “The Blacks” … we can talk about “The Arabs” etc.   We can generalize to a degree.  All races have a purpose and they all have different strengths and weaknesses.

So, racial-realism is part-n-parcel with a Christian view of race.

And,

2.  When we begin looking at racial groups this way, we find out that we’re not the only ones.  In fact, movers and shakers in the world have always seen racial groups as “groups” and have sought to manipulate them to gain power.  For instance, in Communist Russia, entire races were bussed off of their homeland and moved around, integrated, planted among other racial groups to destabilize regions.

It’s been long recognized by the “bad guys”, that mass-integration of races, destabilizes society and keeps it from being able to present a forceful, unified position.  In that way, the strong-arm of the state always wins out.

So the various racial groups are, in some sense, being pitted against each other and most especially, racial minorities in America are being used to break up the power-base of the founding white-stock in this country (who are mostly conservative and Christian).  This is happening through the indoctrination of the racial minorities, laws giving them preferential treatment and a general sense of false-esteem and courage that’s implanted in their group-psyche through pop-culture, public school, etc.

Now, much much more can be said about all that, but I raise these two points, to say this:

What you’re seeing among Kinists is the very front-lines of the counter-offensive.  You’re talking to men in the trenches, and as we both know — trenches aren’t the best place for a lady.  You’ll likely hear the gruff language of angry men.

In the kinist view, minorities are being used against us.  Most of them have a natural disdain for the white race anyway.  (It’s not as if they were peaceful, noble people, thriving in their own utopias before the white man showed up and ruined it all.)  In many cases, these people were cannibals, baby-killers, and depraved in all sorts of ways.

We whites are the Christ-bearing race.  We are His banner-carriers.

That makes us targets of all other groups.  And other groups (blacks especially) only thrive when they are under the strong influence of white, Christian society.  (Notice:  blacks don’t want ethnic nationalism.  If they wanted a black-run government, there are many counties in Alabama and Louisianna that are exclusively black.  Also, Detroit is almost an exclusively black municipality.  But blacks do not want to live there because they’re third-world-style hell-holes.  Blacks want to live where they can reap the benefits of white society.)

The racial-realism of Kinists allows them to see the world truly and thus they often speak frankly about other races.

This may be over-emphasized at times by some kinists, for example, it may be wrong to insult Germans as a group.  But when you’re a solider in the trenches of WWII, lampooning your enemies becomes a matter of morale and survival.

Blacks get the bulk of Kinist insults, because they especially, are our enemies right now.  They’re being manipulated against us and being used along those ends, and along those ends, their natural (and savage) inclinations as a people, are taking them over.  Many kinists, there in the trenches, are mad as hell about it.  (The same is true for the in-coming Mestizo population, who are further destabilizing the white-Christian majority.)

But with all that, don’t forget Kinists do have a missionary spirit towards minorities and if we ever come across one open to our ideas and willing to hear us out, then we’ll be very excited about letting him (or her) in and welcoming them as we would welcome a Christian from another nation.

But we can’t overlook the fact that (either knowingly or unknowingly) many of these people are our enemies.

Hope that helps explain some of the animosity you’re seeing out there…(even if you don’t agree with it.)

I’ll tell you all where I want to go…
Where beards are thick
and the beer, it flows!

I’ll follow my heart where ‘ere it goes,
Till I’m at rest in Idaho!

One of the things some of you will immediately note (upon reading the title of this blog) is that I have not left Facebook at all.

Am I a liar or otherwise inconsistent?

After having more time to think about my position, I believe I can articulate it better than I did in my initial post on the subject.  So in this blog, I hope to clarify myself and also answer a friend’s question concerning the democratic process in small-group settings.

I’ll begin by clarifying my new (and somewhat arbitrary) rule:

I only “friend” those I have personally met in real life (with the exception of my friend Cobus, a Boer living in Namibia.)

Before I “left Facebook” I had a thriving Facebook profile that I used to refer to as: “my networking profile.”  On it, I had white nationalists, kinists and social deviants of all kinds.  I had far more friends there than I’ll likely ever have in real life.  I partook in online discussions very frequently.  People were forming cliques; social dynamics were materializing; group functions and procedures were being instituted and I smelled a rat.

I’ve come to refer to this as: “artificial society.”

Just as Americans eat artificial food, treat themselves with artificial medicines, worship at artificial churches, read and enjoy artificial literature and music; they’re now, thanks to Facebook, able to create an entire artificial (propositional) society.

America’s spiritual health will decline because of this, just as her physical health has because of artificial foods (while I’ve yet to prove that; it has become a strong conviction.)

It was this artificial society that I left.

I do not (I repeat: DO NOT) wish to impose the same requirement on all my Kinist friends who happily engage in the artificial society hosted by Facebook.   This is a personal moral choice that I’m making, to ensure consistency with my own agrarian / nationalist ideology.  It’s my hope that, one day, we can all throw off the artificial things and take up (once more) the genuine-things of life.

Furthermore, in many cases, we sane whites find ourselves isolated in a sea of enemies; the “belly of the beast” as it were.  I’d no more deny a sane white (in those circumstances) the free use of Facebook, than I’d deny a starving man a McDonald’s cheeseburger.  While it’s far from ideal, it is (in many cases) a blessing.

So, how is the society on Facebook artificial, exactly?

Doesn’t it seem real enough?  Real friendships (supposedly) are being made and people have legitimate social interactions, right?  There are even romances and marriages popping out of Zuckerberg’s invention (forgive me for not having a ready citation for that, but everyone knows it’s true.)

To respond, I’ll ask my own question:

Can a person still retain their identity when they’ve been abstracted from their physical surroundings?

In a recent article at Faith and Heritage, under the sub-heading “Personal Identity and Corporate Relations,” Nil Desperandum writes:

When we reflect on the initially abstract question of our identity, of who we are, we inevitably are led to define ourselves according to various outward relations with others. A mother cannot define herself without reference to her particular children and husband, nor can people living in a closely-knit community define themselves apart from the others. We cannot accurately apprehend our personal constitution apart from our particular sex, and neither can we try to define ourselves satisfactorily without including our cultural and genetic inheritance from our ancestors, which is inextricably tied in with our specific race. A proper view of identity is corporately and covenantally grounded.

Much work needs to be done on this concept.  For now, I’ll try and illustrate the importance of Nil’s observation:

To define ourselves, we must describe ourselves in relation to our environment, (ultimately including God — our metaphysical environment.)  As Van Til says, before we can know ourselves, we must know God.  For anyone worried that this scheme sounds almost too Hegelian, have no fears, just hear me out.

Every relationship a person has, contributes to the person’s identity in some way.  Whether that be a relationship with  other people, with our race, our sex, or with the surrounding culture, climate, atmosphere, landscape, etc., it becomes a defining characteristic of the person.

(For a vulgar example:  If a surfer-dude moves to the mid-west, he becomes an oddity.  Or, imagine a businessman suddenly dropped into the wilderness.  The change in environment sets the character in an entirely different relationship with the environment, forcing him to identify himself differently.  These sorts of scenarios play out continually in Hollywood.)

Even the slightest change in one’s physical make-up brings about this change in relation.

A person may dye his hair, for instance, and in so doing, relates (for a time being) to the world in a slightly new way.  Even changing clothes for the day (or for an even more dramatic shift — changing one’s style of clothing) causes big changes in the way a person is identified in relation to the environment.

All of these things physically tie a person to reality.

Being tied to reality (by that I mean:  being subject to the physical and logical laws of this universe) is anathema to the Satanist because it is a direct testimony to the sovereignty of God.  And the Satanist does not want God to be sovereign.  HE wants to be sovereign!

The only way to get rid of nature, then, is to subdue it completely and to sever all ties with it!

Any of you who have read (and are huge fans of) C.S. Lewis’ “That Hideous Strength,” will recognize the same desire among the villains of Lewis’ novel.  (Furthermore, please read “Abolition of Man” if you haven’t yet.  Lewis meant it to highlight in essay format, what he was getting at in “That Hideous Strength.”)

Fallen man is trying to abstract himself from his physical surroundings so that he identifies with none of them.  He’ll maintain complete freedom of identity (just as the Existentialists like Camus and Sartre dreamed).

The artificial society on Facebook is a proto-type version of this descent into the void of abstraction.

In facebook, there are no physical boundaries.

People do not relate to each other naturally, as they would in real life.  The old human ways of relating with people retain a superficial following in Facebook, but they are tenuous at best.  Things like age, economic status, experience, strength and yes: even physical appearance, are given lip-service, but are ultimately unimportant.

(I don’t mention sex here for good reason.  The male / female category is still respected on Facebook for various reasons.  It’s beyond the scope of this post to expound on them all, but I’ll list a few for examples:  Women and Men think differently and so, they interact differently on Facebook.  Also, the possibility for romantic relationships looms in many people’s minds so they don’t downplay sexual differences like they do the others.)

These natural distinctions that, in traditional human society (IE: real life) offer some controlling influence on how people interact among themselves, are absent in the artificial society.  This is to the detriment of us all.

Democracy in the Artificial Society

When I first wrote about why I left Facebook, I mentioned a disdain for Democracy (qua Democracy) and expressed my disappointment that Kinists on Facebook engaged in democratic procedures to carry out practical affairs in the group:

“Democracy,” afterall, has become a cuss-word among our ilk (we kinists.)

And yet, when disagreements arise among us, what do we do?  We vote on it!

Really????

Yes, really.

We’re democrats to the core, all of us…we’re all rationalists.

In response, my friend Chad asks:

As to the Democracy bit… Do you believe that managing a small social group should require the same management approach as running a nationstate?

His question seems to imply that, while the democratic process may be unhealthy on a national level, in small-scale situations, like the online artificial society of kinists, it may have some value.

I don’t intend to comment on whether or not the democratic process has value for small-scale social situations, but I do believe (and I believe this very strongly) that it has no value in the context of artificial societies.  It may even be dangerous.

If we were a group of friends in real life trying to decide on any given course of action, there would naturally rise voices among the group that are more legitimate and trustworthy than others.  Some are more intelligent, some, more elderly.  Some: obviously more wise.  It may be that there would be family-relations in the room, and the sons would defer to the fathers in some respect.

My point is:  there would be various social dynamics in place.  The natural distinctions among men would govern (to some extent) the value of each person’s contribution.

When voting, however, all parties involved are publicly denying these natural distinctions and reducing everyone’s opinion to the same level.  All opinions are now equally valid and worthwhile.

That’s not something a kinist should support.  That’s pure egalitarianism.

In these artificial communities, there are no natural distinctions.  Everyone is a voice.  There is no restraint (other than that natural restraint that comes from honoring the superficial presence of natural distinctions.)  Everyone is equal:  the contentious woman, along with the most elderly of men.

And in that situation, the contentious woman has every (rational) right to openly challenge the opinion of the elderly man (I’m told that there was a time in our people’s history when women took great care in how they spoke to men and would never correct a man in public.  See Otto Scott and Rushdoony’s “Masculinity” episode of “From the Easy Chair.”)

While I’m not going to condemn “voting” in all contexts (I haven’t studied it thoroughly enough to do so), I remain strongly convinced that voting among members of a Facebook group is counter to the decentralized, agrarian and anti-egalitarian views Kinists have been preaching.

I remain devoted to my Kinist friends and to our God and our budding ethnic-state (that’s currently a captive in the Wasteland.)

I love ‘em and miss our interaction and hope to meet them all some day.

Until then, I’ll remain in context.

“The Polar Express” has been playing non-stop this Christmas season.  It’s considered a timeless classic (up there with “The Grinch” and those claymation Rudolf movies).

What a buzz-kill.

Think about it.  A handful of kids finally get a few days reprieve from government school, only to find that if they have a set of passe’ moral failings, they might get bussed away to the North Pole in the middle of the night by a magical train conducted by a pretentious, meddling liberal.

The poor kids don’t have a chance!

They’re pulled out of their beds, hustled onto a multicultural train-car, pestered by skeptical hobos and ultimately chastised for their inadequate attempts to fit into the new egalitarian dream-world!

And, dream-world it is folks!

The multi-racial (and magically harmonious) train-car where most of the the movie takes place, is peopled with children from all walks of life.  The main character “hero-boy” is befriended by a noble-negress, a loud-mouthed jew, and a shy white boy.  During the course of their journey, they all learn about friendship and how to develop a religiously ambiguous faith in…well… in something or other.  Presumably it’s a faith in unity and equality.

The Polar Express is a wonderful example of the new religion that’s sweeping the Western world.  All the old boundaries, standards and holidays of our people, are being removed; they’re being infiltrated — the identity of them changed.  Our precious traditions are being infused with new and sinister meanings.

We’ve been duly warned about all this.

John Dewey, one of the founders of the ACLU and an anti-Christian philosopher, has this to say about the new faith:

“Here [in Humanism] are all the elements for a religious faith that shall not be confined to sect, class, or race.  Such a faith has always been implicitly the common faith of mankind.  It remains to make it explicit and militant.”  – A Common Faith, pg. 87.

By “making it militant” I suppose Dewey meant that he wanted Santa to establish a magical train-route and bus children to the North Pole, teaching them racial harmony along the way but I could be wrong.  (Maybe he had something more like government schools in mind?)

There were setbacks to the plan, however, as Zionist jew Maurice Samuel realized when he wrote against the  American immigration law (of 1924):

“If, then, the struggle between us [between jews and gentiles] is ever to be lifted beyond the physical, your democracies will have to alter their demands for racial, spiritual and cultural homogeneity with the State.  But it would be foolish to regard this as a possibility, for the tendency of this civilization is in the opposite direction.  There is a steady approach toward the identification of government with race, instead of with the political State.” 1

Not steady enough in this writer’s opinion.  Samuel would eventually get his way, prompting cynical commentary a few years later (1968) from conservative Andrew Hacker:

“The United States is about to join other nations of the world which were once prepossessing and are now little more than plots of bounded terrain.  Like them, the United States will continue to be inhabited by human life; however, Americans will no longer possess the spirit which transforms a people into a citizenry and turns territory into a nation.”  – The End of the American Era.

This all started long before the 20s, however.   Another conservative commentator has this to say:

“The French Revolution is only the forerunner of a much greater, much more solemn revolution, which will be the last…Begone, hideous, distinction of rich and poor, of masters and servants, of governing and governed…In the cry of equality, let the forces of justice and happiness organize themselves.” 2.

Yes, the world traversed by the Polar Express is one free of distinctions among men.  A “Nation” (according to these Satanists) is simply a set of legal statements that a rational mind agrees to follow.  If he agrees to these laws, then he becomes a member of this new, egalitarian nation and attains equality with all other citizens.  Only the government of the nation has the right to distinguish between groups of people in this new world (aka: Dewey’s day-dream.)  This describes modern America perfectly.

Race, wealth, sex, religion, and any other traditional distinction among people, are seen as immoral dividers; obstacles to the goal of unity under the state (which means:  unity under a set of agreed-to laws, or “propositions.” 3)  It’s this sort of propositional nation that Dewey and Samuel (and every other satanic liberal) wished to see.   Man (the god of the humanists) must be free to determine who associates with whom, without those pesky, natural distinctions getting in the way.

With such an evil system dominating much of the Western world (and acting as the ideological coal that fuels the Polar Express) what are the few, unfortunate kids stuck on board supposed to do?  Where do they turn?  Who will be their hero?

Well, it’s at this point, dear friends, that Christmas magic offers us a miracle.

Rumor has it that this Christmas Eve, the Polar Express will pass through Vallecito California and on its way through the sleepy city, will come to a stop near the unassuming Chalcedon Foundation headquarters.  And as the steam from the break settles, the snow will cease for a brief moment, the clouds will part and a valiant moonbeam will highlight a majestic figure.

Emerging from the darkness, trading stare-for-stare with the locomotive head-light, will be R.J. Rushdoony, defender of Protestant orthodoxy and theonomic principles.

Rushdoony’s importance cannot be overstated.  He is the rare voice standing against this egalitarian utopia.  And as the pretentious liberal conductor (who looks suspiciously like Tom Hanks) hops off the train and confronts the old scholar, I have no doubt that his legs will be shaking and his hands, sweaty; this man — this bearded wonder — has the ability to derail the Polar Express, uproot the tracks and destroy the system.  And Hanks knows it.

I imagine Rushdoony would walk past Hanks, leaving him standing there, staring at his watch and trying to figure out how to hole-punch Rushdoony’s long list of sins onto a ticket.  Rushdoony, you see, will speak directly to the children and tell them about the old ways.  He’ll look at them through the train windows and speak of a Godly unity — the Communion of the Saints!  The multiracial train-car is an abnormality, an artificial environment that is forcefully imposed on society at great risk to those on board.

Rushdoony despises the utopianism of the Polar Express (and the radical egalitarianism that fuels it.)  Concerning it, he says:

“Thus a “litany” popular in these circles identifies “God” with …”all men,” and calls for communion with all men as they are.  Some churches have held meetings for homosexuals and worked to further homosexual “communion” with their members.  In terms of this new faith, there is no God or Christ in heaven; God and Christ must be found in all our fellow men, accepted as they are without moral judgment or censure.  This concept runs deeply through the so-called “Civil Rights” Revolution.” – Foundations of Social Order, pg. 159.

Rushdoony knows the truth; that if a train car were filled with all different races of children, it would quickly erupt into chaos.  (Movie magic gives voice to liberal naivete and allows for noble-negros, harmonious racial-egalitarianism, and faith in ambiguous, feel-good concepts.  In reality, the noble negress would have her hands around the throat of hero-boy in short order!)  Rush goes on to say:

“But this total communion without law, communion beyond good and evil, militates against everything in man.  No society has ever existed without class and caste lines.  The more social distinctions are denied, the more force is required in society to bring men together, and the more force prevails in a society, the less the communion.”

The more natural distinctions among men are denied, the more violent the government has to become to impose artificial ones.  Only confessional Christianity provides a legitimate and valuable description of the Communion of Saints.  One that respects natural distinctions among men, while also respecting the Godly unity and brotherhood among all Christians 4.

This is the way to promote peace on Earth and goodwill among all races of men.

After the children realize this, Rushdoony will help them off the train and send them home, where they can spend Christmas eve with their families, in their respective, homogenous enclaves and never again deal with temptation from dangerous and Satanic views of nationalism.  (A few of the lucky ones may find a gold-subscription to the Chalcedon bookstore under their tree the next morning.)

And, as for Hanks, he’ll arrive empty-handed at the North pole and spend the rest of the night explaining to Santa why there are “Read Rushdoony” stickers all over the caboose of the Polar Express.

1 As cited in Kevin Macdonald’s “The Culture of Critique” pg. 243

2.  Babeuf.  As quoted in David Thomson’s, “Equality” op. cit., pp. 85-86.

3.  By “propositional nation” I don’t mean “propositions” in the philosophical sense, as in:  those concepts expressed by sentences and that carry truth values.  I’m using the term more generally, to mean:  the paradigm of nationality which equates acceptance of a particular set of abstract concepts (or, a particular set of propositions) with membership in the nation — this stands opposed to something like ethnic-nationalism, which holds to an organic concept; classes of men are distinguished according to their blood-relations to some degree.  Although adherents to propositional nationhood do incorporate allegiance to a particular set of linguistic propositions into their ideology of nationalism, I don’t wish to confuse the two senses of the terminology.

4.  See the Westminster Confession of Faith, chapter XXVI, question three.  Also, read Rushdoony’s extended discussion of the Confession and the Communion of the Saints, in chapter eighteen of his book, “Foundations of Social Order” starting on page 155.

I am a 28 year old woman.
Some of my friends at the office
say there is no white man. 
Papa says, ‘If you see it on the internet, it’s so.’
Please tell me the truth; is there a white man?

Search the world over, Virginia; from the golden California coast to the cold recesses of Siberia and you’ll find many men with unique physical characteristics: white skin, hair of blond and red, and eyes of all shades.

But you know that none of these are white men. None of them satisfies your winsome curiosities. None of them have a heart that keeps time with the old Europe you’ve read about.

Are there white men like the ones on your bookshelf?

Men who will fight dragons, rescue damsels and unashamedly assert themselves in public? Men who consider their family a precious fruit to be harvested with reverence and will not yield it even in the face of five thousand ungodly demons? Men who can, with their eyes alone, fill your heart with longing and inspire you to live out your true feminine calling? Men who will love their wives like Christ loved the church?

Your little friends at the office are wrong. Despite the barren landscape afforded the modern West; yes Virginia, there is a white man.

He exists as surely as those novels on your bookshelf.

He’s hiding for the time-being, preparing himself, training, honing his abilities and ensuring his readiness for the day his Master’s battle-horn sounds and white heroes ride once more under the banner of Christendom.

And while he’s in hiding, he strives to keep his soul from being polluted by our Satanic age in hopes of maintaining a respectable place in the halls of his Christian ancestors.

Oh Virginia, no white man? Thank God he lives and lives forever! He’s watching for you, even now; he stares back at you from the pages of those books on your shelf and longs to rescue you from the dragon-jaws of modernism.

So even if it takes ten years, or ten thousand years, be vigilant! Don’t accept the latte-sipping, Hawaiian-shirt-wearing, limp-wristed, hipster who has no interest in the patriarchal family, heroism, or dragon-slaying. He’s not a white man, no matter the color of his skin. Hold out for a white man.

As long as he exists, so does hope for the West.

I couldn’t disagree with him, of course.  If you’re inclined to disagree, check out this CNNNN gag.  (CNNNN in an Australian pseudo-news organization, similar to “The Onion”.)

This video inspires a little national pride, even among the most ardent of apathetic Americans.  They rise off the couch, grab up their American flags, and yell to the sky:  “We are *not* stupid!  You are!”

At least, that was my reaction.  (Ok, not really.  I  don’t own an American flag and while I am prone to yelling at the ceiling it’s usually for less-noble reasons.)

Readers of this blog (all 2 of you) know that I’m an ardent Southern Nationalist (in my own, modified way) and the last thing I want to do is defend contemporary American institutions.  So, I was confused myself about the feelings of patriotism bubbling up in me while watching that video (and again, later on, when my Brit friend asked me his question.)

I realized that it was the American people that are being ridiculed here, not our institutions and way of life.  And, the American people are my people.  (At least, I identify most with the Scots-Irish in the south, especially in the Appalachian region and ultimately, as my understanding of history goes, that makes me of the Anglo-Saxon people, with my particular ethnic stock originating in the low-lands of Scotland, migrating to Ulster Co. Ireland, and then ultimately to the far-blue mountains of America, and beyond!**)

I love the people, the customs and traditions…it’s the cancer of industrialism and the resulting ideological movements that I despise.

So, here’s how I answered my friend:

I claimed that Americans aren’t “stupid” per se.

The average American knows fact A, fact B and fact C, but is helpless in stringing them together into a coherent worldview.

The English-speaking world is, after all, notorious for its reliance on strict empiricism.  Consider the following joke for example:

A businessman asked three philosophers (a Continental philosopher, an English philosopher and an American philosopher) to help him get his elephant off the barge and safely onto land.

The continental philosopher says, “Hmmm…does the elephant really even exist?”

The English philosopher says, “Hmm…how much does the elephant weigh?”

The American philosopher says, “How much will you pay me?”

Ok, well, it’s not really that funny of a joke, but if you’re into philosophy, you’ll immediately note the accurate caricatures.  Continental philosophers were concerned with grand metaphysical schemes (think Spinoza and Leibniz) where as the Brits were into empiricism and scientific investigation.  Americans, to the extent that we can speak of an “American school of philosophy” have always been pragmatic.

This mindset (or zeitgeist if you will) has transferred itself through the ages and today, is well-established orthodoxy, which is very convenient for the financial oligarchs and other satanists (who designed government education to produce factory workers.)

Yes, the American knows how to get things done and is motivated by that knowledge.  If CNNNN had asked any of those folks how to get to the nearest Starbucks, or how to get extra-money for college, I’m sure they would have regaled him with information.  Travel down-south and ask any white man (worth his salt) how to change the oil in a car, fix a flat, or bait a fishing-hook, and you’ll not only get the answer, but you’re liable to get the full-spectrum of diverse opinions on the the matter.

“You see, Jim Bob up the street says you use grub worms and crickets, but if’n you do, you’ll never keep them suckers on the hook when the brim are bitin’ … but Jim Bob swears by ‘em!”

America, unlike Britain or Continental Europe, has never had substantial literary or philosophic movements (that have amounted to anything.)  Now, I know that’s an almost grotesque generalization.  What of the American romantics?  What of Poe?  What of New England Transcendentalism?  What of the Southern Renaissance?

Well, unfortunately, it seems none of these movements have had any effect on slowing down “progress” and by “progress” I mean the devastating march of industry through the flower-beds of community, organic-bonds and cultural tradition.

Americans simply have a very narrow set of concerns in life and they’re prone to compartmentalize everything else.  Philosophy is a separate subject from astronomy and physics.  Psychology is a different subject from mathematics and biology!  Economics are separate from politics and theology!  Music has nothing at all to do with sociology!

In this way, American thought is compartmentalized, distinct and piece-meal.

It’s my hope that as the theology of Cornelius Van Til takes hold while simultaneously, the ravages of industrialism become more and more apparent, that Americans will begin thinking in terms of “worldviews” and all-encompassing conceptual schemes.  They’ll be able to see how national politics and international politics are related.  The common-man will begin taking an interest in what’s happening in Spain, Greece and Ireland.

There might spring up new regional-renaissance movements!  And Americans in general will stop being slaves to the captains of industry (or, as I like to call them:  the powers of the air) and begin taking in the world around them as the wonderfully-rich environment God created.

Until then, I’m afraid the above video clip will remain an accurate caricature of Americans.

________________________________

** I realize the history of people groups is shrouded in ambiguity and I’m open to being corrected on the general scheme I’ve laid out here.  It’s my contention that the Scots-Irish are “Anglo-Saxon” in general, because of their geographical origins.   “Scots” are people from Scotland, who are generally considered a mix of Picts and Gaels and Britons (IE: Welsh) as well as Anglo-Saxon, and given the fact that the lowland Scots lived on the borderland and participated (politically) with Anglo-Saxons often, it seems like a blurring of ethnicities is warranted, especially when, again in the South, the two were thrust together and allied in culture and environment.  With the help of my grandmother, I’ve managed to trace my family-line all the way back to the 1600s when our first ancestor moved to Virginia from Ireland, though I’ve not been able to go further.  Nor have I been able to trace the ancestry of all the wives, so I’m sure some mixing of stock has occurred.  For lack of a better term, I’ll speak of the “Southern Ethnicity” and identify myself and my people in those terms.  See Vanishing American’s post for further discussion.  And also, see comments from the Southern Nationalist Network here.