Honest individuals will note that life is hard these days for a Kinist. 

We’re not allowed to speak our minds in public and our family reunions are rife with suspicion and dramatic confrontations with liberal family-members.  It’s not enough that we have to face the usual questions, “why don’t you make as much money as your cousin?”  “Why aren’t you married?” etc.  We also have to endure their (un)righteous indignation and in many tragic cases, their cold-shoulders.  Even worse, some of us have to stave off attempts at evangelization by zealous judeo-xtians who are trapped deep’n'wide in a Satanic cultural hegemony (down in their hearts) where egalitarian peace flows like a river.  We have to go swimming with them or we’ll end up in Hell!  (I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again:  if Hell is the England of Dickens and Austen, then consign me to the seventh-level of it!)

So we Kinists eagerly accept any gift the Lord gives us, including a thorough appreciation of the great scholars and theologians of the past who survived modernism’s transforming effect on Christendom and came out swinging.

Dr. Francis Nigel Lee is one of those.  Raised in South Africa, he was uniquely situated to see the harsh realities of cultural Marxism and racial-egalitarianism. 

You can read up on Lee for yourself — I’ll simply say that he’s like a South African version of R.J. Rushdoony.

Lee, however, is more self-consciously nationalistic in his rhetoric than Rushdoony.  (At least, I’ve never heard Rushdoony state things as definitively as Lee on these issues.)

Waylander’s Keep has done great work in putting together clips from both Rushdoony and Lee, so please check out his site for more. 

The following will be an excerpt from one of Lee’s sermons called “The Purpose of Man” and begins at 18:00 in:

“Notice then, that once marriage has produced the family and the various families go out into the world from one another and ultimately they produce the kin.  The kin — the clan.  The Clan the nation.  The Nation the world.   In the end, we have the whole of humanity descended from Adam and Eve and living over the whole world.   The whole human race, then, is one family in spite of differences.

Here again we see a reflection of the trinity.   One God but a diversity of persons within the one God.   A Father a Son and a Spirit.  This is reflected in the diversity of the entire human race throughout the world and even within each one of our families.  Our children are not the same as one another.  They have differences and yet, they all have a basic humanity. 

Now let’s deal with nationalization by which I mean the formation and development of nationality.   Now filling or replenishing the Earth, as men left their fathers and mothers and trekked further and further with their wives into the world, this ultimately would have resulted in the development of different nations.   We’re told in Acts 17, for example, God made out of one blood all of the nations of man for to dwell over the face of the whole Earth. 

And it seems to me that nations would have come into being, even if man had not fallen into sin.  But, after man fell into sin, naturally national differences are much more intensified then they would have been.  I think there would have been some race-consciousness if man had not fallen, but there would have been no racial hatred between people, or racial friction or national friction or linguistic friction (such as in Canada between English and French speaking people.)  They would have had the different languages, but they would have gotten along with one another. 

At this point in the sermon (19:54), Lee goes into an argument countering the Liberals and their egalitarian, anti-nationalist interpretation of the Pentecost narrative.   Lee makes this argument in at least two different sermons and so, I’ll exclude this part from my post today and take a more extensive look at his argument in a future blog. 

At 21:16, Lee Concludes:

Now sanctified nationalities exist both in the church militant here on Earth, here and now, and I believe they will still exist on the new Earth to come.  The very last page of the Bible tells us this.   The nations of those that are saved shall walk in the light of the Heavenly Jerusalem.  And the kings of the Earth shall bring the glory and the honor and cultural treasures of the nations into the Heavenly city. 

Therefore, it seems to me, we Christians should work for both a Christian national order as well as work for a Christian international order.  But we should not work for an un-national or anti-national order.   Some people use the word “international” loosely as if it meant anti-national or un-national, it doesn’t.  To be really “international” you presuppose that there’s something worth preserving in your nation and that there’s something good in the other man’s nation that you want to learn about, and then you work together. 

Again, the principle of the trinity.  Each person, or in this case, each nation, reinforcing one another and needing the other without sacrifice of the personality, on the one hand, or of the national treasures of the nation concerned, on the other. 

I’ve done a lot of thinking this week.  I’ve looked at my life and and I’m not happy with what I see.

I’ve lusted for glory and power; I’ve blasphemed, lied and betrayed my most sacred convictions.   I’ve let down those closest to me and worse, I’ve sinned against God.

I think about the phrase “brow-beaten” from time to time.  So few victories, so many losses.  Our enemy is so big, so well-entrenched, so powerful.

I feel alone in my struggles.  Those around me have their minds trapped by the Devil and I’m powerless to save them.

But there is one who isn’t powerless.  There is one who, covered in blood sweat and filth, stumbled toward His goal and overcame all evil.

How exhausted He must have been — our staggering and bloodied Father– as He faltered on His way to the cross?

Mired in the world of the enemy, I can look up and see a light, breaking through a small hole in the clouds and when it surrounds me I’m able to cry out to Him:

Jesus keep me near the cross…
There’s a precious fountain…
Free to all, the healing stream
that flows from Calvary’s mountain.

In the Cross, in the Cross,
Be my glory ever…
Till my raptured soul shall find
Rest beyond the river…

There is no glory for me, I want none of it.  In the Cross will be my glory ever!  My life for Him and the love that touched this tortured Earth.  Charity that transcends space, time and eternity, cuts through the dark-clouds of modernity and strikes at the very heart of me.

There is no heart without Him.  There is no love, there is no race, there is no honor.

In Him my raptured soul will find peace…

…only then can I withstand 100 demons from Hell.

(Skip the first 30 seconds.)

While I appreciate the bone they throw Van Tillians at the end of the essay, I’m not sure Van Til would be happy with how they got to their conclusion, especially their “conceivability is a reliable guide to possibility”argument

Here’s the link:

http://www.proginosko.com/docs/The_Lord_of_Non-Contradiction.pdf

There’s a lot to digest here. I’m happy they’ve written such a well-sourced and clear argument. Even if it may not be as “Van Tillian” as we Van Tillians would like, it still promises to be a wonderful “go-to” resource.

The paper is about how logic (and logical arguments) ultimately presuppose God, (if the conclusion of the paper is true.)When someone argues that “God doesn’t exist”, they are being inconsistent since logic itself presupposes a god.  (Note: the argument doesn’t specifically prove the Christian God, rather like most natural-theology projects, it proves a generic, necessary mind of some sort.)

I don’t see how this argument would refute the Skeptic or the malicious solipsist; the Skeptic could simply argue that there may be a possible world where logical laws are not necessary.

(To counter this, Anderson / Welty argue that would defy the very definition of “possible world”. But the Skeptic would likely counter that and claim it’s question-begging! At most, it might be argued: logical laws are necessary for human experience, but nothing says that human experience holds in all possible worlds.)

The solipsist might argue that *his* mind is the source of the necessarily-existent propositions we call “logical laws;” that *he* is the source of thoughts about truths-about-truths.

In either case, the non-believer is left with an avenue of escape and has legitimate grounds to claim (contrary to Romans 1) that he had an excuse not to believe.

For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse.

Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.

Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, and changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.

Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves: Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.

What irks me about the paper is that the authors start on a philosophically neutral standpoint.

Anyone, regardless of presuppositions, would (ideally) be able to work their way through this discussion and arrive at the conclusion: “some sort of necessary, personal mind exists.”Anderson / Welty are trying to be philosophers instead of Christians.

What they should have done is admit at the outset that they were going to conduct an exploration of the laws of logic within a Christian theological framework.

Then they could have concluded that: “Outside the Christian view of the world, it would be impossible to account for logic, since the laws of logic themselves presuppose the Christian God.”

I’m not in academia and have no interest in earning a place at the table of ivory-tower folk, so my frank opinion is that James Anderson is so willing to court the Satanists that he’s set Van Til on the shelf of old-toys and moved on to bigger and better schools of thought.

What philosopher would argue that his own mind isn’t the key to saving the world? What philosopher would knowingly set aside his weapons and humble himself before God?

“No, no, no… God must need our help!”

Despite my wisdom on the matter, I gobble up new and trendy philosophical essays and day-dream about my own contributions to the field.

God forgive me!

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.