Kevin MacDonald: White Advocate

From: The Jewish Journal

The Professor the Anti-Semites Love
Kevin MacDonald, Cal State Long Beach, and the downside of academic freedom
By Brad A. Greenberg, Senior Writer
Kevin MacDonald. Photo by David Sprague

Everybody should read this article about Kevin MacDonald by Brad Greenberg in its entirety. It is an article that treats the professor in a balanced manner and gives a short summary of a majority of the professor's views without a single valid attempt at rebuttal. All of the Jews that make a showing in the article do exactly what they do best - kvetch. (By the way, that word - kvetch - is actually in my spellcheck!)

The attempts at discrediting the professor are many but most take the usual form of the anti-anti-semites, that is, attempting to convince the general populace that fear and anger toward Jews as a collective ethny is irrational and ill informed. The slander starts in the fallacious title and luckily they make themselves look silly enough in the subtitle of the article to make continuing reading pleasant. The very first sentence makes an appeal to the guilt by association fallacy in reasoning. All kinds of Neanderthals on Stormfront support Kevin MacDonald's research and utilize it in their blogs and forums so he must be an irrational, foaming-at-the-mouth Nazi who is ready to implement a murderous final solution.

The subtitle to the article proposes that Kevin MacDonald's work is the unfortunate downside of academic freedom. Leftist Jews are being told they must accept the rantings of the far right if the universities are to be able to reshape society. Since Marxists lunatics and the Noel Ignatievs of the world need the state subsidized universities as platforms for spreading their rally cries for the destruction of the White race, one-worldism and socialism they must accept the occasional White advocate that manages to slip quietly into a tenured professorship so as not to appear hypocritical to the general public. It is a simple posture of magnanimity to always keep themselves on the moral high ground in the battle.

Oy vey! Look at those brave yet sensitive university Jews! Working side by side with that nasty MacDonald yet still defending his right to free speech!

The article doesn't waste any time letting us know exactly on whose side the professor is on and it is clear that it is the side of the White European. We immediately learn that professor MacDonald is our "foremost thinker," supported David Irving in his libel trial, favors restricting college enrollment for Jews and supports higher taxes for the same to correct inequities in society. My kind of man!

The article then proceeds to give us the history of the professor, his publishing ordeals, childhood and university path and credentials. It humanizes the professor in ways other articles from even a friendly stance have failed to do. We come to learn that we scored a small victory in the person of the President of CSULB (Cal-State University Long Beach) who will not disassociate the University from the work of the professor on the basis of that pesky thing called academic freedom. We learn about pressure from special interest - Jewish lobbies - to fire the professor and attempts at smearing his character. One thing we don't hear about are any rebuttals of the professor's work by people in his discipline. The silence, as they say, is deafening.

The first book called A People That Shall Dwell Alone: Separation and its Discontents in the professor's series Culture of Critique, puts forward pretty much the same tired thesis about traditional "Gypsy" or "traveler" groups that the Jew Yuri Slezkine does himself in his book The Jewish Century. It is unprovocative at the level of boredom, but nevertheless, it is extremely true. The one exciting claim MacDonald makes in his first book is that Talmud study is a eugenics program built into Judaism.

The second book in the series has one controversial chapter which compares Nazism to Judaism. At least it would have been controversial if I hadn't seen the exact same thesis put forward by the actor Ryan Gosling in the thoroughly Jewish film written and directed by the Jew Henry Bean called The Believer.

MacDonald comments on the connection:

"The National Socialist movement in Germany from 1933-1945 is a departure from Western tendencies toward universalism and muted individualism in the direction of racial nationalism and cohesive collectivism.... It may be usefully conceptualized as a group evolutionary strategy that was characterized by several key features that mirrored Judaism as a group evolutionary strategy."

MacDonald concluded that Nazi ideology "may well have been caused or at least greatly facilitated by the presence of Judaism as a very salient and successful racially exclusive antithetical group strategy within German society."
In the end MacDonald's work, based primarily on Jewish sources, is conceded to be important by a Jew:

Another journalist eager to discuss this topic is Philip Weiss, who writes the blog, Mondoweiss, and, unlike Goldberg, is an anti-Zionist who can be a brutal critic of his co-religionists. In December, MacDonald mentioned Weiss on his Web site, kevinmacdonald.net, where he links to his articles about Jews and Western culture and writes lengthy responses to critics. MacDonald praised Weiss as a fellow traveler. On his own blog, Weiss quickly rejected the embrace.

"He is trying to examine some important ideas. I just wish he wasn't racist about it," Weiss said in an interview, adding, "There was scrutiny of Jewish power in Central Europe when the Nazis arose. Therefore there is no ability to scrutinize Jewish power now because it makes you a Nazi. But I think that it is a legitimate intellectual and journalistic exercise to scrutinize Jewish power. I know MacDonald is engaged in that, and I respect that. But it is his generalizations about Jews that I find disturbing."
Again the article attempts to link the professor to Stormfront and the Vanguard News Network but the brave professor does not let us down and does not shirk from the call of duty:

MacDonald repudiated such rhetoric as "crazy stuff" but said he supports the ideology behind it.

"White people have legitimate ethnic interests. To the extent that that is all they believe, then we are on the same page," he said. "I don't like to use words like white supremacists. You could say that Koreans in Korea are Korean supremacists if they want to maintain their culture. It is kind of a loaded word; it is a politically charged word of the left, basically, to pathologize any sense of having an ethnicity and culture by people like me. I reject that."

"I certainly reject the tactics and the rhetoric of these people. It's very crude," MacDonald added. "But to the extent that David Duke is trying to advance a white ethnic interest and so on, I don't have any problem with that."
Brad Greenberg has written an informative and evenhanded article that is well worth your time to read. Brad has succeeded in confirming for me that Kevin MacDonald is a White advocate in a time when few are willing to be. Now, where's the White European ADL?


The Banks

Civilization is a stream with banks. The stream is sometimes filled with blood from people killing, stealing, shouting and doing the things historians usually record, while on the banks, unnoticed, people build homes, make love, raise children, sing songs, write poetry and even whittle statues. The story of civilization is the story of what happened on the banks. Historians are pessimists because they ignore the banks for the river.

- Will Durant


Seeking Inhabitable Dwellings by Speaking in Code

rhode island craigslist > apts wanted

$850 Move in August 1st (Not Providence)

Reply to: rosiedixon@gmail.com
Date: 2008-05-09, 9:39PM EDT

We are a looking for a place that is $850, or so, with utilities. ~ The size isn't overly important. It must have parking, we have one car. Non smokers; we do not want to live in a building with smokers, at all! We have no pets but we are happy to live in a building with pets. Laundry on site would be nice.

Daniel (24) is an apprentice utility lineman with the New England Lineman's Apprenticeship. Rosie (28) is a housewife.

We are in bed early and up early (5am - We have careers!) and need a place that is quiet at night.

We are good tenants; We never pay rent late and understand when the plumbing / heating goes out. We are quiet and our landlord who lives in the apartment below us can attest to that.

We both bring good references with us.

Neither of us are party people and would like to live in a building that is not filled with late nighters/loud noise makers or in an area which has a "vibrant night life" or "vibrant community". We already experienced that in San Francisco and have no desire to repeat living in those conditions as listening to Reggaeton all hours of the day and night isn't great if you're not into that style of "music" and having our car broken into repeatedly wasn't nearly as entertaining for us as it was for the thieves, and so on...

Presently we live in a beautiful area in northern MA and are relocating to RI for work. Our apartment here is located in an older building in an older neighborhood near the sea, both are peaceful and quiet at night and we are looking for that same level of comfort and safety.

When we moved in here we fixed the place up and we are happy to do the same again somewhere else (our landlord covered the cost of paint etc.), we are not put off by a place being quirky or different and would prefer that over living in a cube.

If there was a garden available that would be lovely! I would like to plant some vegetables and flowers, if not then that is fine too.

Looking forward to hearing from someone we would be appropriate for, Rosie.

Location: Not Providence
it's NOT ok to contact this poster with services or other commercial interests

PostingID: 674838058



I could have wished to give it sooner, but it is soon enough if good enough.
- John Calvin

I profess to be one of those who, by profiting, write, and by writing profit.
- Augustine

Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice and moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue.
- Barry Goldwater

A man with God is always in the majority
- John Knox

Reflection on Sovereignty

"Him, being delivered by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God, ye have taken and by wicked hands have crucified and slain." -Acts 2:23

Man is responsible for the positioning of His heart, the condition that inclines him to move his hand. The act itself is not the cause of the act.

Monergist concerning Salvation and a monergist concerning guilt; God is the author of Salvation and Man is the author of guilt.

The Christian Doctrine of Nations

Biblical Law Respects Boundaries of Race and Nation
by H. A. Scott Trask

In the September 1997 issue of AR there was a debate on whether Christianity is at least partly to blame for the demise of Western Civilization and the suicidal course being pursued by Western peoples. Both positions were ably argued, and on the whole I had to agree that the key to the controversy was a distinction between historical Christianity and contemporary Christianity. As Michael W. Masters (“How Christianity Harms the Race”) acknowledged implicitly and Victor Craig (“Defense of the Faith”) acknowledged explicitly, the two are not the same; and, as Mr. Craig argued persuasively, historical Christianity has not been indifferent to the fate of the European peoples.

The situation today is quite different. Whether Catholic or Protestant, conservative or liberal, all Western churches have embraced leftist dogmas on questions of nationality and race. The only difference appears to be that the more liberal churches openly support the multicultural and anti-white agenda, while the conservative churches ignore it. Of course, ignoring an agenda that pervades everything from politics to advertising is a form of tacit acceptance. The question is not whether Western churches are betraying their predominantly white congregations; they are. The question is whether they have doctrinal justification to do so.

It would be hard to overestimate the extent to which churches have surrendered to the leftist racial world view. Two years ago, the Pope said this about the inundation of Western countries by Third-World “refugees:” “These foreigners are above all our brothers, and no one should be excepted for reasons of race and religion.” Of course, one could argue that race and religion are the two most important reasons to prevent foreigners from settling in one’s homeland. A common race is the foundation of any true nation, while a common religion is the foundation of a common moral code.

Leaving aside the race question for a moment, what kind of insanity has gripped the Catholic hierarchy that it would maintain that a Christian country should not keep out non-Christians? Whatever the answer, Protestant churches in Northern Europe and North America suffer a similar affliction. While liberal Protestants prate about the endless benefits of “diversity,” conservative Protestants boast they will convert the newcomers. So lost have they become in the mists of political correctness, so effeminate has become their Christianity, they do not realize the erection of mosques, Hindu temples, and Buddhist shrines in the formerly Christian lands of the West is not a sign of progress in world evangelism but is terrible regress and defeat.

If the children of these pagan newcomers are, indeed, to be converted from the religions of their parents the contest will be between evangelicals and hedonistic liberals. Is there any doubt that the latter will sweep the field? These children’s parents came here to enjoy the good life and escape the challenges of building up their own nations. Their children will inherit this materialistic and self-seeking orientation. Christians can boast all they want about tolerance and love of foreigners, but immigration is only further marginalizing Christianity in our culture.

Some Christian leaders have been so bold as to call on the Western peoples to commit racial suicide so as to make the newcomers feel more welcome. Billy Graham himself recently told white Christians they had a moral duty to foster total racial integration “in our homes, in our worship services, even in our marriages.” Of course, if every young European in the world were to take a non-European wife or husband, the European people would cease to exist in just one generation.

It would be hard to overestimate the extent to which churches have surrendered to the leftist world view.

As far as I know, not a single Christian leader condemned, or even criticized, Billy Graham’s call for white extinction as a solution to the race problem. Billy Graham’s position is similar to that of the former Republican congressman from Southern California, Robert Dornan, who said before a USA Today editorial board meeting: “I want to see America stay a nation of immigrants, and if we lose our Northern European stock — your coloring and mine, blue eyes and fair hair — tough! So what if 5,000 years from now we’re all going to have a golden tan… We’re all going to be blended together because of travel, and because of the information highway.” On the race and nationality questions the churches are following the lead of the dominant secular culture, not the other way around.

While few evangelical leaders are as bold as Rev. Graham, many come close. The former director of the Christian Coalition, Ralph Reed, has been particularly eager for the “Christian Right” to support the racial agenda of the Secular Left. At the first Congress of Racial Justice and Reconciliation, held in Washington, DC, in May 1997, Mr. Reed agreed that racial “injustice” was widespread in bank loans, housing, inner-city funding, and in prison sentences. He also agreed there had been a white racist conspiracy to burn black churches. (Readers of AR know that this “conspiracy” was a hoax.) The Christian Coalition launched something called the Samaritan Project, to help rebuild black churches.

Nor should it be forgotten that Mr. Reed and the Christian Coalition are largely responsible for stopping Pat Buchanan’s insurgent drive for the Republican presidential nomination in 1996. After winning in New Hampshire, Mr. Buchanan had only to win in conservative South Carolina to establish himself as the front runner ahead of Bob Dole. Mr. Reed and other coalition members simply repeated the leftist media charges that Buchanan was a “racist” and an “extremist,” thus helping Mr. Dole win the primary and nomination.

About the same time, the Christian Coalition helped defeat proposed legislation in Congress that would have cut legal immigration by a modest one-third on the grounds that it would have prevented immigrants from bringing in relatives, thereby thwarting “family reunification.” Such an objection is sentimental nonsense, for it is immigrants who first chose to separate from their families and people. Americans are not obligated to end such freely chosen separations by throwing open their borders. [On this incident, see the remarks made by the president of the American Immigration Control Foundation, John Vinson, in his pamphlet “Immigration and Nation, a Biblical View” (AICF, 1997), p. 16.]

Most Christians never mention, much less oppose, policies that directly harm whites: racial quotas, affirmative action, anti-discrimination laws, forced busing, extortion-motivated “civil rights” lawsuits, black-on-white hate crimes, interracial marriage, and Third-World immigration. They believe Martin Luther King, Jr. was an American Christian hero who truly deserves to be the only American with a national holiday in his honor. They believe “racism” is a sin, but a sin only when it is white racial consciousness or loyalty, never non-white racial consciousness or identity. They believe whites have a moral and Christian obligation to “bridge the racial divide,” integrate their churches, reach out to people of color, etc. It therefore seems a bad joke to speak of Christian conservatives or the Christian Right, for there is nothing conservative about acquiescing in a demographic revolution to turn whites into a minority.

White Christians became racial liberals mainly because the Church has been besieged by the same forces that now dominate every other Western institution. The universalistic and egalitarian ideas of the Enlightenment have now fully penetrated Western culture. Feminist and socialist values have worked their way into Western culture and have overthrown traditional ideals of manhood, patriarchy, and chivalry. Biblical illiteracy, illogic, and historical ignorance have created an environment in which the Scriptures have been perverted into a religious justification for racial liberalism.

There are many examples of such perversion. Christian ministers and writers love to cite the Apostle Paul, who wrote that “there is no distinction between Jew and Greek, for the same Lord over all is rich to all who call upon Him” (Romans 10:12, New American Standard Bible; all quotations are from this translation, which is known for its accuracy.) They argue this means we should make no racial or ethnic distinctions or even think in racial terms. Paul is said to be conveying the same idea in another epistle: “There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free man, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus” (Galatians 3:28). In context it is clear these two passages reveal God’s offer of salvation to all regardless of race, nationality, social standing, or sex. They do not mean — and as we will see Paul himself makes it clear he does not mean — that such distinctions should be ignored, that they are unimportant, that acting upon them is sinful, or that they should be overthrown.

If the liberal interpretation of these passages were correct, God would be not only a racial liberal but a socialist and a feminist as well. If these passages endorse the abolition of racial identity and distinctions based on them, they also endorse the obliteration of sex distinctions. And if the Bible supports racial liberalism, why has this fact come to light only in the past century, a century known for its secularism and declining moral and cultural standards?

The Old Testament

Contrary to what one has heard from the pulpit or on Christian radio, the Bible supports racial preservation and even separation. The Bible teaches that mankind is composed not of an amorphous mass of individuals but of nations. It also teaches that the basis of all genuine nations is a common ethnic stock, which is more important even than a common language, culture, political allegiance, or locale. The Bible praises homogeneity as a blessing, and posits it as the basis of love, friendship, social peace, and national harmony. The Bible also sanctions love of nation and fatherland, a virtue antagonistic to indiscriminate and large-scale immigration.

According to the famous “Table of Nations” in Genesis 10, God organized mankind into discrete nations in the aftermath of the Great Flood. He created three sets of nations, each set descending from one of the three sons of Noah: Fourteen nations from Japheth; 30 from Ham; and 26 from Shem. After listing the progenitors of each of the nations that sprang from Shem, Genesis uses a formula closely repeated for Ham and Japheth, “These are the sons of Shem, according to their families, according to their languages, by their lands, according to their nations” (Gen. 10:31). The Genesis account of the dispersal of the nations concludes, “These are the families of the sons of Noah, according to their genealogies, by their nations; and out of these the nations were separated on the earth after the flood” (Gen. 10:32). These passages make clear that the essential constituent element of each nation is common ancestry, together with a “land” and a distinctive language. This is God’s creation, with no indication that it is anything other than entirely in accord with His will.

Genesis describes the areas in which these different nations settled in terms of migration patterns that conform to a broad division of races. For centuries there was universal agreement in Christendom that the Europeans were descended from Japheth, the Semites (Jews, Persians, Syrians, Arabs, and Asians) from Shem, and the Africans (including Egyptians and Canaanites) from Ham. However literally or figuratively one chooses to interpret this account, Genesis clearly divides the peoples of the earth into groups of related but racially distinct peoples.

Modern Biblical commentators and Christian leaders have tried to deny the obvious by insisting that the division of nations is not providential but accidental. They believe God intended the nations to be all as one (i.e. to cease being distinct nations). Therefore, they urge Christians to do all they can to restore mankind’s lost unity by tearing down national boundaries, promoting mass immigration, teaching English as a universal language, and intermarrying freely with members of other racial families.

This interpretation suffers from several flaws. First, if God intended mankind to be as one, why did He create many nations in the first place? Second, it is contradicted by the order of the Genesis narrative. The Table of Nations comes before the story of the Tower of Babel, indicating that God’s ordering and separating of the nations was part of His plan from the beginning. The sons of Noah refused to follow God’s clear mandate to separate and fill the earth. Instead, they gathered together, founded a city, and built a huge tower as a symbol of their power and independence. However, God’s sovereign purpose cannot be frustrated by the designs of men: “The Lord confused the language of all the earth; and from there the Lord scattered them abroad over the face of all the earth” (Gen. 11:9).

The scattering was neither arbitrary nor chaotic. According to the Biblical account, people moved with their nations in an orderly exodus that fulfilled God’s purpose. As we learn in Deuteronomy, God gave each nation or people its own lands and separated these lands by territorial boundaries: “When the Most High gave the nations their inheritance, when He separated the sons of man, He set the boundaries of the people” (Deuteronomy 32:8).

The third flaw of the modernist interpretation of Genesis 10 and 11 — and from a Christian perspective the most dangerous — is that it repeats the sin of the people who built the Tower of Babel. The modern desire for global unity, amalgamation of peoples, destruction of territorial boundaries, English as a universal language, and construction of a world government is difficult to see as anything other than a sinful desire to rebuild the Tower of Babel and create an autonomous humanistic order independent of God. It is a rebellious project that defies God’s plan for world order based on discrete nations each residing within its own lands.

Fourth, the project for global unity sullies the beauty and diversity of God’s human creation, in that it suggests that the existence of different races, which vary markedly in physical appearance, is a mistake that man is to remedy by racial intermarriage. In this warped version of creation, God is the bungler and man the redeemer.

Throughout the Old Testament, Biblical writers consistently refer to mankind as composed of distinct peoples and nations, and not as an undifferentiated mass of individuals. In fact, Hebrew has no equivalent for the English word “people,” meaning mankind in general. The psalmist is therefore talking about separate peoples when he declares that all the non-Jewish nations are in rebellion against God, and asks “why are the nations in an uproar and the peoples devising a vain thing?” (Psalm 2:1 NASB). When the psalmist speaks of the day when all mankind shall acknowledge the one true God, he shouts “Praise the Lord, all nations; laud Him all peoples” (Psalm 117:1). Likewise, “All the nations whom You have made shall come and worship before You, O Lord” (Psalm 86:9). Although the nations join in praising God, they by no means lose their national identities.

The New Testament

The New Testament reaffirms the national and ethnic distinctions of the Old Testament, if anything, in stronger and clearer terms. Unlike Hebrew, the Greek in which the New Testament was written does have a word for mankind, anthropon; however, it is used infrequently and never suggests the elimination of the national or racial divisions of mankind. Luke wrote that God “made from one [Adam] every nation [ethnos] of mankind [anthropon] to live on all the face of the earth, having determined their appointed times, and the boundaries of their habitation” (Acts 17:26). Christ himself commanded his disciples to go and “make disciples of all the nations [ethna]” (Matthew 28:19).

Paul — though often cited in Christian attacks on race and nationality — both in his writings and personal loyalties clearly supports the view that nationality is based on a common ethnic origin. To begin with, one can well ask to what nation did Paul belong, and on what basis? He was born a Roman citizen in the province of Cilicia in Asia Minor. He spoke both Hebrew and Greek fluently. Religiously, he was not only Jewish but a Pharisee. He converted to Christianity. In answer to our questions about his nationality, the modern Christian could offer four possible answers: Paul was a Cilician (place of birth); he was a Roman (citizenship); he was a Greek (language); he was a Jew but became a Christian (religion).

According to Paul himself, all four answers would be wrong, for Paul on numerous occasions, after he became a Christian, identified himself as belonging to the Jewish nation on the basis of birth and heritage — not merely a Jew but of a particular tribe. He was, he claimed, “of the nation of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew of the Hebrews” (Philippians 3:5). When he wrote to the Romans in the city of Rome, he did not claim to be Roman (except by citizenship) but Jewish: “I too am an Israelite, a descendant of Abraham, of the tribe of Benjamin” (Romans 11:1). He referred to the Israelites as his “brethren, my kinsmen according to the flesh, who are Israelites” (Romans 9:3, 4). He also referred to the Roman Christians as his “brethren” (Romans 11:25), but he is clearly speaking in a spiritual sense.

Thus, Paul made a distinction between his ethnic nation (Israel) and his spiritual nation (the Christians). Far from the latter superseding or abolishing the former, as most modern Christian leaders would claim, Paul affirms and honors both as an integral part of his identity. He hoped that more of his ethnic kinsmen would come to accept Christ as the Son of God: “Brethren [Roman Christians], my heart’s desire and my prayer to God for them [Israel] is for their salvation” (Romans 10:1 NKJV). He also expressed confidence that God will not “reject His people,” meaning the Jews (Romans 11:1).

Paul uses the Greek word laos (a people) to refer to both an ethnic people, as in the people of Israel, and a spiritual people, as in the people of God. Paul’s use of that word in both contexts proves that ethnicity is not rendered obsolete or illegitimate by coming to Christ.

Paul’s ethnic identification is consistent with everything we know about the ancients, whether Greek, Roman, German, Celt, or Semite. They understood a nation to be a people of a common ancestry or race. The Roman Empire was not a nation, nor did any ancient author consider it to be a nation. They understood it to be an empire made up of many nations.

Differences between English and the Greek of the New Testament can cause misunderstanding. Christ’s commandment that Christians should “love their enemies” sounds in English like a radical, all-embracing injunction that would do away with ethnic or national differences. Greek, however, distinguishes between personal enemies and foreign enemies. It has three words for enemy: polemios (a foreign enemy), agonistes (a competitor or rival), and echthros (a private enemy; literally, one whom you hate). When Christ commands Christians to “love their enemies” (Matthew 5:44; Luke 6:27,35), he uses the word for one’s private enemy, that is to say someone with whom a Christian has quarreled. Never is this injunction applied to foreign enemies, the enemies of one’s people.


The Bible endorses ethnic homogeneity as a positive good that contributes to peace, harmony, and happiness, whether it be in marriage, friendship, or society. The Hebrews were forbidden, first by their patriarchs and later by God Himself, to marry the sons and daughters of the peoples of the land God had promised them. Abraham made his chief servant swear not to search for a wife for his son Isaac “from the daughters of the Canaanites [Hamites], among whom I live; but you will go to my country and to my relatives [descendants of Shem], and take a wife for my son Isaac” (Gen. 24:3,4).

When Jacob and his family (sons, daughters, and grandchildren), 70 persons in all, went to Egypt to dwell in the land of Goshen under the protection of Pharaoh, only one son, Simeon, had a Canaanite wife in addition to a Hebrew wife (Genesis 46:8-26). Thus, out of all the grandchildren of Jacob, only one was part Hamitic. Upon their return to the Promised Land some 400 years later, Moses forbade the children of Israel to intermarry with the Canaanites, whose land they were preparing to invade and occupy (Exodus 34:12-16; Deuteronomy 7:3).

Modern theologians, Bible commentators, and pastors are quick to insist that God’s prohibition of such marriages was based on religion rather than race or ethnicity. Their shocking conclusion is that while white Christians are forbidden to marry non-Christian whites they are free to marry non-whites so long as they are Christians. They fail to see that God’s prohibition was based on both religious and racial considerations. God does not condemn interethnic or interracial marriage per se, but He does lay down a principle that would forbid it as a common or widespread practice. The late Rousas J. Rushdoony points out that Biblical law and example is against all kinds of unequal yoking: “The burden of the law is thus against inter-religious, interracial, and inter-cultural marriages, in that they normally go against the very community which marriage is designed to establish” (The Institutes of Biblical Law, 1973). Many scriptural examples support this interpretation, as we shall see.

Liberal Christians repeatedly point out that God blessed certain interethnic marriages. The examples they cite are always between Israelites and members of other Semitic peoples who were their ethnic kin (descendants of Shem). When Joseph was serving the Pharaoh of Egypt as his chief adviser and servant, he married a member of the ruling class of Egypt and had sons by her, including Manasseh and Ephraim, both of whom would become the patriarchs of two of the twelve tribes of Israel (Genesis 41:8,50-52). However, his wife, as well as the entire ruling class of Egypt of that time, were Hyksos (a Semitic people who were ruling Egypt at the time). They were thus the cousins, or racial kin, of the Hebrews. Undoubtedly, this ethnic and cultural kinship had something to do with the favor with which the Pharaoh and his people viewed the Hebrews during this period.

When Moses fled Egypt some 400 hundred years later, he sought refuge among the Semitic Midianites, a people descended from Abraham and Keturah, and he took a wife from among them. He thus did not violate God’s prohibition against intermarrying with the cursed Hamitic peoples. (After Ham showed disrespect to his father Noah, God cursed him and all his descendants — Gen. 9:20-25.) Nor does the famous marriage between Boaz (an Israelite) and Ruth (a Moabite) violate the principle of ethnic consanguinity, for the Moabites too were Semites, being descendants of Abraham’s nephew Lot.

Foreign marriages in the Bible are almost always portrayed as acts of unfaithfulness, disobedience, or lust. God promised Abraham many descendants and to make of them a great nation. Abraham believed the Lord, but his wife Sarah was too old to bear children. She therefore permitted Abraham to have intercourse with their Egyptian maid, Hagar. As God intended miraculously to open Sarah’s womb, the result was that Abraham soon had two sons, Ishmael by Hagar (a Hamite) and Isaac by Sarah (a Semite). The result of this mixed lineage was a divided and unhappy household. Eventually, Abraham sent Hagar and Ishmael away. As Hagar chose an Egyptian wife for Ishmael, the Ishmaelites gradually merged into the surrounding Hamitic peoples and soon ceased to exist as a separate people.

Later, Esau (Isaac and Rebekah’s eldest son) demonstrated his unfaithfulness to God and his people, as well as his lack of sexual restraint, by marrying two Canaanite women who became a “grief of mind to Isaac and Rebekah” (Gen. 26:34, 35). The descendants of Esau’s marriage (the Edomites) became persistent enemies of the Hebrews.

The great Israelite hero Samson had a weakness for foreign women. Against the wishes of his parents, he took a wife from among the Philistines, and he afterward frequented Philistine harlots. It was this lack of sexual restraint and his unwillingness to abide by God’s laws that led to his blindness and death at the hands of his enemies (Judges 16).

Centuries later, when a remnant of the Hebrews returned from their long captivity in Babylon, they repented of their fathers’ propensity to intermarry with foreigners: “The people of Israel and the priests and the Levites have not separated themselves from the peoples of the lands … , for they have taken some of their daughters as wives for themselves and their sons, so that the holy race is intermingled with the people of the lands” (Ezra 9:1, 2). This is an unmistakable condemnation of ethnic mixture.


Prophecy in both the Old and the New Testament gives strong evidence that God considers his division of mankind into various national or racial families not as an obstacle to be overcome but as an integral, praiseworthy, and permanent part of His creation. In some passages, prophecy points to the eternal significance of these distinctions. David prophesied that “all the ends of the earth will remember and turn to the Lord, and all the families of the nations will worship before Thee” (Psalm 22:27 NASB); and that “all the nations whom Thou hast made shall come and worship before Thee” (Psalm 86:9 NASB). James, the half-brother of Jesus, declared before the Jerusalem Church Council that the Father had revealed through the prophet Amos that He would send his Son (Jesus Christ) “so that the rest of mankind [anthropon] may seek the Lord, even all the nations [ethne] who are called by My name” (Acts 15: 17). Election does not destroy national identity.

The Book of Revelations provides clear evidence for the eternal destiny and indestructibility of the nations. In the New Jerusalem (Heaven), “the nations [ethne] shall walk by its light, … and they shall bring the glory and honor of the nations [ethnon] into it” (Rev. 21:24, 26). Furthermore, John revealed that the leaves of the Tree of Life in the midst of Paradise “were for the healing of the nations [ethnon]” (Rev. 22:2). These passages are impossible to understand without recourse to a doctrine of Christian ethnic nationalism.

Moreover, it is only recently that the churches of the West have claimed that ethnic and racial nationalism are in conflict with Christianity. The great Protestant reformer John Calvin affirmed the necessity and goodness of the national division of mankind: “Just as there are in a military camp separate lines for each platoon and section, men are placed on the earth so that each nation may be content with its own boundaries.” In this manner, “God, by his providence reduces to order that which is confused” (Quoted in William J. Bouwsma, John Calvin: A Sixteenth Century Portrait; New York: Oxford University Press, 1988, p. 35).

Of the major Christian churches, only the Eastern Orthodox Church seems to have retained an understanding of the legitimate and necessary place of the nation in the life of the individual Christian. In a recent document, the bishops of the Russian Orthodox Church affirm both the universality and particularity of every Christian: “The universal nature of the Church, however, does not mean that Christians should have no right to national identity and national self-expressions.” Rather, they urge Christians to develop “national Christian cultures.”

The bishops also challenge the leftist dogma that nationalism is acceptable only when it is based on non-ethnic factors: “Christian patriotism may be expressed at the same time with regard to a nation as an ethnic community and as a community of its citizens. The Orthodox Christian is called to love his fatherland, which has a territorial dimension, and his brothers by blood who live everywhere in the world.” In addition, “the patriotism of the Orthodox Christian should be active. It is manifested when he defends his fatherland against an enemy, works for the good of the motherland, cares for the good order of [a] people’s life through, among other things, participation in the affairs of government. The Christian is called to preserve and develop national culture and people’s self-awareness” (“Bases of the Social Concept of the Russian Orthodox Church,” Jubilee Bishops’ Council of the Russian Orthodox Church, 13-16 August 2000, pp. 4-7).

One cannot imagine the Catholic, Lutheran, Anglican, Methodist, Baptist, or Presbyterian churches issuing a document of such wisdom. It is no coincidence that the one prominent Christian writer who understands that nationalism and Christianity are not in conflict is an Eastern Orthodox Christian, Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn. Upon returning to his homeland in 1993, the Russian patriot explained why he had left a comfortable existence in the United States: “In Vermont I had wonderful conditions, better than anything Tolstoy ever had… I could have stayed there peacefully and in great happiness. But it would have been running away from my duty not to have come back. I could not escape our people’s pain.” His words stand as a rebuke to all Third-World Christians living in America who refuse to return to their homelands to build their own nations and help evangelize their own people.

For centuries Christians have had no difficulty accepting the important teaching of Scripture about the legitimacy of nations. That they now ignore this teaching or misinterpret it points to the poisonous infiltration of Enlightenment and socialist modes of thought. Socialism, whether of the Eastern Communist or Western Social Democratic variety, has been consistently hostile not only to Biblical Christianity but to the national division of mankind. The Russian Christian writer Vadim Borisov described socialism almost thirty years ago as “a well-thought out plan for the destruction of the Christian cosmos, a plan to turn mankind into an amorphous mass.”

The fall of Communism ten years ago did not discredit socialism. The Social Democratic variant is stronger than ever, and continues its work of national destruction. Borisov warned that the socialist promise of happiness through liberation from the past and the imposition of equality was false, for “an impersonal, unstructured, formless existence is impossible.”

The Apostle Paul warned believers to beware of “false prophets and deceitful workers,” for “Satan himself transforms himself into an angel of light” (2 Corinthians 11:13, 14). The medieval theologian Thomas Aquinas warned Christians that Satan and his angels disguise themselves sub species boni (under the appearance of good). European Christians should be on their guard against socialists posing as Christians, for the socialistic dream of racial reconciliation and world unity leads to nothing less than the extinction of Europeans as a separate people and the destruction of their civilization. Christians must stand in defense against those who would — in the name of Christ — have us abandon our lands and our people. AR

Dr. H. A. Scott Trask is an American historian, a writer, a Protestant, and an Anglo-Celt.

Church Visibility

The hinges on which the controversy turns are these: first, in their contending that the form of the Church is always visible and apparent; and, secondly, in their placing this form in the see of the Church of Rome and its hierarchy. We, on the contrary, maintain, both that the Church may exist without any apparent form, and, moreover, that the form is not ascertained by that external splendour which they foolishly admire, but by a very different mark, namely, by the pure preaching of the word of God, and the due administration of the sacraments.

They make an outcry whenever the Church cannot be pointed to with the finger. But how oft was it the fate of the Church among the Jews to be so defaced that no comeliness appeared?

What do we suppose to have been the splendid form when Elijah complained that he was left alone? (1 Kings XIX:14) How long after the advent of Christ did it lie hid without form? How often since has it been so oppressed by wars, seditions, and heresies, that it was nowhere seen in splendour?

Had they lived at that time, would they have believed there was any Church?

But Elijah learned that there remained seven thousand men who had not bowed the knee to Baal; nor ought we to doubt that Christ has always reigned on earth ever since he ascended to heaven. Had the faithful at that time required some discernible form, must they not have forthwith given way to despondency? And, indeed, Hilary accounted it a very great fault in his day, that men were so possessed with a foolish admiration of Episcopal dignity as not to perceive the deadly hydra lurking under that mask. His words are (Cont. Auxentium),
"One advice I give: Beware of Antichrist; for, unhappily, a love of walls has seized you; unhappily, the Church of God which you venerate exists in houses and buildings; unhappily, under these you find the name of peace. Is it doubtful that in these Antichrist will have his seat? Safer to me are mountains, and woods, and lakes, and dungeons, and whirlpools; since in these prophets, dwelling or immersed, did prophesy."
And what is it at the present day that the world venerates in its
horned bishops, unless that it imagines those who are seen presiding
over celebrated cities to be holy prelates of religion? Away, then,
with this absurd mode of judging! Let us rather reverently admit,
that as God alone knows who are his, so He may sometimes withdraw
the external manifestation of his Church from the view of men

This, I allow, is a fearful punishment which God sends on the earth; but if the wickedness of men so deserves, why do we strive to oppose the just vengeance of God? It was thus that God, in past ages, punished the ingratitude of men ; for after they had refused to obey His truth, and had extinguished His light, He allowed them, when blinded by sense, both to be deluded by lying vanities and plunged in thick darkness, so that no face of a true Church appeared. Meanwhile, however, though His own people were dispersed and concealed amidst errors and darkness, He saved them from destruction. No wonder; for He knew how to preserve them even in the confusion of Babylon and the flame of the fiery furnace.

But as to the wish that the form of the Church should be ascertained by some kind of vain pomp, how perilous it is I will briefly indicate, rather than explain, that I may not exceed all bounds.

What they say is, that the Pontiff, who holds the apostolic see, and the priests who are anointed and consecrated by him, provided they have the insignia of fillets and mitres, represent the Church, and ought to be considered as in the place of the Church, and therefore cannot err. Why so? because they are pastors of the Church, and consecrated to the Lord. And were not Aaron and other prefects of Israel pastors? But Aaron and his sons, though already set apart to the priesthood, erred notwithstanding when they made the calf (Exodus XXXII:4). Why, according to this view, should not the four hundred prophets who lied to Ahab represent the Church? (1 Kings XXII:ll, &c.) The Church, however, stood on the side of Micaiah. He was alone, indeed, and despised, but from his mouth the truth proceeded. Did not the prophets also exhibit both the name and face of the Church, when, with one accord, they rose up against Jeremiah, and with menaces boasted of it as a thing impossible that the law should perish from the priest, or counsel from the wise, or the word from the prophet? (Jer. XVIII:18). In opposition to the whole body of the prophets Jeremiah is sent alone to declare from the Lord (Jer. IV:9),. that a time would come when the law would perish from the priest, counsel from the wise, and the word from the prophet. Was not like splendour displayed in that council when the chief priests, scribes, and Pharisees assembled to consult how they might put Jesus to death? Let them go, then, and cling to the external mask, while they make Christ and all the prophets of God schismatics, and, on the other hand, make Satan's ministers the organs of the Holy Spirit!


Serial Killaz

"Anti-Racist" Is Code for "Anti-White"

From the Robert Whitaker website NationalSalvation.net

Africa for Africans, Asia for Asians, White Countries for Everybody!

"Liberals and respectable conservatives say there is this RACE problem. Everybody says this RACE problem will be solved when the third world pours into EVERY white country and ONLY into white countries.”

“The Netherlands and Belgium are more crowded than Japan or Taiwan, but nobody says Japan or Taiwan will solve this RACE problem by bringing in millions of third worlders and quote assimilating unquote with them.”

“Everybody says the final solution to this RACE problem is for EVERY white country and ONLY white countries to “assimilate,” i.e., intermarry, with all those non-whites.”

“What if I said there was this RACE problem and this RACE problem would be solved only if hundreds of millions of non-blacks were brought into EVERY black country and ONLY into black countries?”

“How long would it take anyone to realize I’m not talking about a RACE problem. I am talking about the final solution to the BLACK problem?”

“And how long would it take any sane black man to notice this and what kind of psycho black man wouldn’t object to this?”

“But if I tell that obvious truth about the ongoing program of genocide against my race, the white race, Liberals and respectable conservatives agree that I am a naziwhowantstokillsixmillionjews.”

"They say they are anti-racist. What they are is anti-white."

"Anti-racist is a code word for anti-white."