Dec 9, 2015

I Am Woman: I Am not Going to Roar

via Counter-Currents

Vincent Van Gough, Peasant Woman
Binding Sheaves, after Millet, 1889
Women today are defined though the agencies of one non-desirable camp or the other. Frankly, the liberal and the oppressed camps are equally repellent. Either women “are” hairy-armpit-proud man-hating leftist-agenda queers who welcome diversity, godless paganism (if you’ve ever been to a goddess circle you understand what I mean by godless) espousing only womyn-power focused gender politics — OR women “are” soft-headed Republican sweet cheeks who get their nails done, support our troops, knit hats for premature babies, eat too much chocolate once a month, and have no brains for real politics, genetics, or anything that isn’t preached from an oak paneled pulpit once a week (at least). No other option is currently available.

Ladies, we have been robbed of a huge slice of who we are.

What do I mean by this? Let me illustrate with a pointed parable that may make it to somebody’s Tumblr feed.

Let’s take a good old American female icon: the pioneer woman. Everyone can picture her, from her calico sun bonnet down to her gingham apron strings. She is a strong image, a mother, a cook, a healer, a settler, a farmer’s wife, and a farmhand in her own right. She also was usually the only other adult besides her husband to be found in the immediate vicinity of her world. That means a lot of shared duties. It takes a lot of work to build a new life in the wilderness (I know). Hard work and shared work is her lot. Sometimes she does man’s work. (Note that I did not put scare quotes around the term man’s work.) Take, for example, the image of the pioneer mother grabbing a rifle from her husband’s stash and shooting alongside him to protect their family and home because two grown-up white people are better than just one when it comes to protecting the kids and the cabin from the Apaches. Women know what it means to have to take up arms and lean out of a window and shoot when you’d rather be hugging your children protectively and praying your husband can protect you all . . .
. . . but, instead of giving this scenario the right interpretation: that we women are protectively capable of doing what needs doing when punch comes to hit, we get sold the image of a sharp shooting Maisy who doesn’t need some gun toting man around the ol’ farm anyway. Maisy, as a matter of fact, hit more ‘bad guys’ (they were white invaders in this version) than he did, having superior aim and better upper body strength. Maisy wouldn’t shoot Apache Peoples. She’s not a racist violent oppressor. Heck, Maisy would find some nice squaw to raise some soy boys with in the ways of zer people [if zhey only could]. Maisy knew the truth about how a woman’s life ought to be lived, she was proto feminist before she was a pioneer, before that she was a cowperson and a mountainperson and fought in the Union Army. But she didn’t kill anyone. She helped slaves escape.

If you aren’t thinking you particularly like Maisy, if you don’t see Maisy the way the matriarchy expects you to, if you question the historical reality of anyone like Maisy, you are less than a woman.

And you are a racist (obviously . . . you would have shot those First Americans).

And you are a man.

This is the message that the world ceaselessly campaigns for women to ingest with their morning decaf-double-almond-milk-latte, along with their daily doses of Xanax and birth control pills, too.

If you ladies don’t want to be a racist, and a man, you must think that my little feminist twist on pioneer gender roles is perfectly natural . . . and wonderful. You are a racist and a man if you don’t think pioneer women were the same as pioneer men. No, scratch that. Not the same. Better.


If I know I’m a racist because everyone is (think about it, Tumblr rebloggers). I guess I must be a man then?

I am not a man.

But I must be, if only because I am not a feminist womyn, and there is no other option except the God and cookie-party double X version of womanhood where non feminist women clump in hen-like fashion to gossip, look at each other’s Pinterest boards and—according to what we all saw on TV growing up—sometimes unashamedly lounge around, laughing and pillow fighting, in lacey but demure bras and panties, because non-feminist women don’t have to worry about, you know, that, like men and lesbians do. Non-feminist woman is woman happily unsexed and unrespected as non-man, with her spray-on tan and a little gold cross around her swan-like neck.

I am not that.

What am I, then, in society’s estimation, if I don’t believe that I am a man and yet I don’t act within the established parameters of not-man womanness? If I don’t believe that I am a not-man womyn or a not-man grrrrl? If I don’t regard myself even as a not-man because I don’t define myself by what I am not?

It’s maddening.

If I don’t agree to conform to anything other than these repulsive things that are offered to me: being manlike or non-manlike, I am left with no contemporary role models, no common gender community, no positive reflections, no place in the greater picture of life that is constantly shown to me via the internet, movies, books, magazines and other people. I become something that is, by dint of not finding acceptable alternatives, socially unacceptable.

Socially unacceptable.

In this modern era of greater broader grander Women’s Emancipation, Gender Equality, Woman’s Rights, blah blah blah . . . there is a whole gamut of actual feminine experience, of viable femalehood, of traditional woman ways which is not socially acceptable. Unless a woman embraces one of the two extremes that are the only contemporary versions of woman allowed or given any attention to, she is, to all extant and purposes, nonexistent. Not mentioned. Not alluded to. There are no well-balanced versions of women in today’s consciousness.

Not on the Left and not on the Right.

The rigid concept of woman, of female, is as narrowly defined by Right writers as it is by Lefty writers. Women are either too strong and challenge men (on the Right this is portrayed as a negative, for the Left a positive), or they are not even strong enough to be trusted to vote in a “man’s world” (on the Right this is portrayed as a positive, on the Left a negative).

I can get chocolates but I can’t get Esoteric Hitlerism. I cannot have tattoos and homeschool my children. I can respect Savitri Devi but not Jack Donovan. I can homebirth but I can’t Home Rule.

Really now. That’s all I get?

Ha. Ha. Ha.

That’s all any of us get if we go along with it.

Forget it brothers and cisters, we’ll go it alone.

Let us keep the defining of authentic womanhood to authentic women. Feminist-womyn are not the only thinking radicals with XX chromosomes on the face of the earth, just as men are not the only thinking traditionalist rational humans around here either. And if you don’t like it, I suggest you lump it.

Actually, I more than suggest it. You can lump it.

I am tired of this nonsense. I am tired of the inexact definitions. I am tired of ignoring this two-image perception of women when I come across it in essays or articles because it is beneath me to quibble over whether challenging it is “too strong” or not challenging it is “too submissive.” You know what, grrls and boys, it’s neither, I’m neither and I think that anyone — man or woman or self-proclaimed trans-queer who shoves the concept of womanhood to one end or the other of the human spectrum is . . .  for lack of a nicer way to put it . . . a pain in my ass. And I hate pain in my ass people, pardon my unladylike language. Pain in my ass people mean that I have to take the time to deal with them, which will establish them as worth dealing with, which is not what I think of them at all. See . . . pains in my ass.

But sometimes you have to deal with them.

So I am going to.

Bear with the gloves-off quality of the next section of this essay, please. Sometimes . . . a lady has to do with a lady has to do. Silence breeds consent, after all.

What is the place of women in a white homeland? I can answer that question, because I’m smack dab in the middle of building one. As for the hard heavy labor and protection . . . I leave that to my menfolk. And they can concentrate on working and protecting because I am organizing and making the place worth protecting. I cook a mean streak. And clean up efficiently. And mend. And knit. And garden. And raise kids. And write essays. And I’m liable to stop and look at cute things like puppies and kittens and chicks while I’m out hanging laundry by hand, washing dishes outdoors in the cold by hand, realigning the supply tent that the wind keeps knocking, and watching the sky for the ever present North West rain.

I don’t like the idea of having to shoot an invader or a deer or kill one of my hens for food . . . but I can. It is important to know that I can, even though I don’t have to. And I don’t have to. We have a balanced life here, and I don’t have to do the manly and husbandry side of things . . . but I can if I no longer had a husband to do them.


As regards surviving and flourishing in this experience we call life, my strengths and resources are equal to but not the same as what men’s are. Not as strong in muscle, but better at endurance. Not as fast at running, but better at picking things up. Not fueled by testosterone, fueled by estrogen. I presume you get the picture. That’s real strength, knowing what your own strengths and suitabilities are. That’s also traditional womanhood as partnered with traditional manhood. Which is how it is supposed to be.

I am tired of every snot-nosed septum-pierced vagina-positive pro-abortion quasi-marxist (Marx wasn’t a womyn after all) piece of feminist-spite telling the world that she writes for me, speaks for me, opines for me. That lesbians and Bruce Jenner are commendable examples of womanliness. That if I so much as look at a dotted Swiss vintage apron I may as well throw myself in the back of a cave and let some cro mag abuser pull me around by my hair. Which is not blond, because blond hair is evil.

I like dotted Swiss vintage aprons, I like old cookbooks, I like washing my own American-made antique dishes and my Edwardian-era silver plate table ware. I like tablecloths. And forget-me-nots. I adore knitting. I love babies. I want as many grandchildren as I can get, and I plan on making plates of cookies and passing platters of home cured ham until I die. I chose to be a mother. Note that I did not use the obnoxious term “stay at home mother”—because the term mother should automatically mean that I stay at home and raise my children. If I didn’t raise them, then I’d just be a person who has kids and a job. No thanks, womyn, I’m not taking that poison.

And when I do these things, and when I like these things, and most importantly when I publically state that I do and like these things, I am standing my ground in a fight that takes so much strength of character that it makes the so called women’s revolution look like nothing more than the go with the flow peer pressured popular mass culture that it is. A feminist is a woman who is too weak to oppose feminism.

I was once asked to help out with my sons’ Boy Scout troop. They were putting in raised flower beds at a senior citizen center –it was an Eagle project. Scout moms showed up in “gear” (costumed like drag king lumberjacks) with shovels and hammers in hand, to “help.” I brought a bunch of cookies and some lemonade that I made for the event (I make very good lemonade). The moms looked at me like I was an evil beast, an evil crazy housewife beast intent on wrecking their equality, when I put that box of cookies and that lemonade on a table and proceeded not to pick up a board of wood and start hammering like a man.

They hated me for two reasons. The first is that they felt a bit cheated. There I was not banging my thumb, not ruining my shoes, not running around in unbecoming work clothes because I didn’t want to be an ersatz man parent. The second reason is that I ruined their self-images, which is fine with me. I never asked to be in charge of how they view themselves when they compare themselves to a woman who doesn’t want to be an ersatz man. Making these unthinking women have to stop and wonder what exactly constitutes their true power/worth/value is a feather in my “I am woman but I am not going to roar” bonnet. (I don’t actually wear a bonnet; that is part of your extremist brainwashing. Just because I am not a man and do not want to be doesn’t mean that I wear bonnets. C’mon.)

Really, I don’t care if anyone out there doesn’t like that I’m not advocating for either extreme of womanhood, that I say that women are not men and are not dolls, that I say I am good at things that men are not good at and that men are good at things I am not. That I don’t care about the power structure, per se, of man versus woman . . . and that when some idiotic manosphereian rubs his hands together and outlines how much more rapeable women are, it doesn’t faze me. We are well aware of that (is anyone not aware of that?). But that doesn’t mean we are little pink mice that anyone can pick up and have his way with just because men have more body strength; it means that we are more vulnerable. Okay. We’ve been vulnerable like this since the beginning of time. We have managed to assess our situations and our environments and our companions since the beginning of time, too. Without the help of the frenzied every-man-is-a-rapist rape-whistling feministic army by the way. Somehow enough of us got through all those horrible patriarchal years to land here in woman-power-time safe and sound. Golly.

I mourn the loss of gentlemanly men and ladylike women, but they’re gone as our culture of European civility fades, what we (when I say we, I am speaking of we who are reading this on an Alt right, New Right, or Folkish Heathen site, not someone who is not we, someone who is reading this as a reprint that some leftist reblogged somewhere) anyway, what we have now is a bunch of mostly harmless folks who don’t quite realize what is happening, and some real pigs.

“Pigs” is a non-gender broad-based term, by the way—I get mean emails from empowered womyn pigs and their grrlfriends attempting to put me down by inserting the terms “racist” and “nazi” as soon as they can wrangle them into their tirades about gender-flexible multicultural family units and why I am not as enlightened as those who advocate these. And I get condescending emails from women-hating men pigs who attempt to put me “in my place” by calling me “honey” and also “idiot feminist” right off the bat.

Ah, not letting either extreme define my sense of self really gets both ends of the old social spectrum piggery going.

Oh well. It’s not like either side is right.

Women need to stop picking up what the establishment is putting down. We need to recognize that every image, every notion, every social cue regarding womanhood and ladylikeness and femininity we receive from the greater One World Bank backed social landscape (whether far liberal left or far conservative right) is a manipulation.

Tasha Tudor is a manipulation. Barbie is a manipulation. Frigga is a manipulation. Freya is a manipulation. (Before you start hate mailing me again, remember who recorded the sagas and myths . . . it wasn’t the heathen Norse . . .) Mary, mother of Jesus is a manipulation. Mary Magdalene is a manipulation. Hillary Clinton is a manipulation. Rosa Parks is a manipulation. That stupid girl with the dreadlocks and glasses in that meme is a manipulation. Every female character in ABC’s Once Upon A Time series is a manipulation. The Vagina Monologues is a manipulation. 19 Kids and Counting is a manipulation. Miley Cyrus is a manipulation. Taylor Swift is a manipulation. Eva Braun as “lover” and not as “fiancée who became wife” is a manipulation. Bruce Jenner is a manipulation. The whole woman of the year concept is a manipulation. Miss America is a manipulation.

These are manipulations of what it is to be female, of what it is to be a mother, of what it is to be attractive, of what it is to be natural, of what it is to be powerful, of what it is to be weak, of what it is to be good, of what it is to be a failure, of what it is to be smart, of what it is to be fully and balancedly engaged in this plane we call human existence. The manipulations are done for a reason. The reason is to keep us off balance, off kilter, not right within ourselves. So long as we agree to accept their terms, we are letting them dictate how we see ourselves, and how we live with ourselves. We live according to how others than ourselves want us to live.

Sure, it’s been forced upon us. As has racial equality, gender equality, (heck, gender fluidity), GMOs, non-white immigration, the evils of white privilege, vaccinations, credit scores, holocaust controversy, going to college, and fluoride in our water.

It’s rather like the “astro turf” method used by big politicos to fake grass-roots support and make people think that “everybody” is doing something. You are a crank or a quack if you distrust vaccines. You are a freak and a conspiracy nut if you wonder about chemtrails. You are a nonthinkingsheeplebreeder if you don’t embrace feminism. You are a slutbitchwhorewhowantstobeaman if you do.

We don’t have to take this. We have to deal with it, sure, but we don’t have to take it. Dealing with something is different than taking it. We can deal with it by not taking it.

We are not any more or less than what we are. We are women. Authentically. Really. Actually. We have always been us. But so many of the things that make us us, that make us women, have been distorted and denigrated for so long that too many women consider this fun house mirror reflection of ourselves as the truth of ourselves. Don’t look at those mirrors. Look elsewhere.


Plenty of places. Let’s start with ourselves.

I do not consider what I do unisex, I consider everything I do “female.” I am female. A female human. Sort of but not the same as a male human. We all eat, we all breathe, if we are threatened we will defend ourselves, we grasp astronomy, higher mathematics, ancient languages, we can curry a horse or a sauce, we dream in technicolor, we can shoot, kill and gut a deer, and we can plunge our hands into freezing water . . . we are quite capable of many things. Both men and women are. But we are not the same.

I don’t want to be the same. I also don’t want to be strictly limited to one or the other of the prevalent extremes in which I may express my womanhood. And so I reject those extremes. I reclaim the total, the whole, the entire length and breadth of who I am as a woman. Neither anti man or pro feminist. Neither screeching harpy or special flower. A person. A woman person. A woman.

If you winced when I ended that last paragraph with the word “woman” because it just doesn’t sit right with you and you’d rather that I closed with the word “person” . . . do some deep thinking, do some self-reflection, ask yourself why ending with the word “woman” seems to evoke both a challenge and an admission of defeat.

Then email me regarding traditional European recipes, astronomy, milk paint, knitting, iambic poetry, cottage gardening, signed copies of my books . . . and how to start a white homeland. Do not address me as Ms. But as Mrs. Howard-Hobson* I will be happy to answer, as fast and as thoroughly as womanly possible.

* I have been asked why I use a hyphen in my surname, if I am not a roaring feminist. I am not a roaring or even an unroaring feminist. My name contains the hyphen of an obsolete class system, not of an overactive social agenda. Now you know.

Yes, Ethnonationalism Is Biblical: A Response to Kevin Craig, Part 2

via Faith & Heritage

Part 1

I continue my critique of Kevin Craig’s response to my article, “A Biblical Defense of Ethno-Nationalism.” In the first part of my response, I focused on Craig’s inconsistent use of terms, especially in regards to the word “nation.” I also responded to some of Craig’s unsubstantiated claims and straw men arguments. In this part of my response I would like to address what lies at the heart of the disagreement between Craig’s position and my own. I believe that Craig’s commitment to libertarianism is a major stumbling block in his understanding of biblical morality. Craig’s commitment to libertarian ideas causes him to read this position into the Bible. Of course all of us need to be on guard against reading our own presuppositions into the Bible, so this problem is by no means unique to Craig. However, Craig’s commitment is very evident in his writings, and this causes him in many cases to ignore straightforward biblical teachings because they do not cohere with his own libertarian worldview. First, let’s observe statements that confirm Craig’s radical libertarianism.

Craig’s Doctrinaire Commitment to Libertarianism

Radical libertarian ideas pervade Craig’s response to my article as well as his other writings and blog postings. As I stated previously, many non-Kinists do not discard the idea of the legitimacy of national boundaries entirely, but rather idiosyncratically maintain that national distinctions with a particular loyalty to one’s own physical nation has some purpose. By contrast, Craig takes his libertarian worldview to its logical conclusion by denying national boundaries any legitimacy at all. Craig protests any practice that limits immigration. Craig writes, “All political ‘boundaries’ and ‘borders’ are completely arbitrary.” He further asserts, “All immigration laws enforced by acts of violence by civil magistrates should be abolished.” As a libertarian, Craig distinguishes between private property rights and the national boundaries. In my original article, I referenced Deuteronomy 27:17 and Proverbs 22:28 as precepts that demanded that property and boundaries be respected. In response Craig writes, “[W]hile property should be respected (‘Thou shalt not steal’), the tribal divisions of land in Israel have no enduring authority.” Craig provides no evidence that these verses refer only to the private property of individual families, because no such evidence exists. The two verses above are just as applicable to national boundaries as they are to the boundaries of the private property of individual families.

Craig’s position, which is similar to the stance on immigration advocated by Peter Leithart in his essay, “The Nation, The Church, and The Immigrants,” essentially denies that a tribe or nation has any collective stake in the property owned by individual families. In his brilliant response to Leithart, Darrell Dow demonstrates that nations can and did police their borders.1 The Israelites requested that the Edomites allow them to pass through Edom on their way to Canaan after leaving Egypt, saying, “Let us pass, I pray thee, through thy country: we will not pass through the fields, or through the vineyards, neither will we drink of the water of the wells: we will go by the king’s high way, we will not turn to the right hand nor to the left, until we have passed thy borders. . . . We will go by the high way: and if I and my cattle drink of thy water, then I will pay for it: I will only, without doing anything else, go through on my feet” (Num. 20:17, 19).2

The King of Edom refuses, and even threatens to attack Israel if they disobey his edict. While the King of Edom’s action is certainly inhospitable and uncharitable, it was nevertheless considered to be within the valid use of his authority. The legitimacy of this refusal can be ascertained when we compare his actions to the actions of the wicked Sihon, King of Heshbon. After refusing a request from the Israelites similar to the one they had made to the King of Edom, Sihon preemptively attacks the Israelites. It was this preemptive attack on an innocent people who were not the aggressors against him that resulted in his just overthrow by the Israelites in battle (Num. 21:21-31; Deut. 2:26-37). Matthew Henry comments regarding Moses’ request to the King of Edom:
They are humbly to beg a passport through their country. Though God himself, in the pillar of cloud and fire, was Israel’s guide, in following which they might have justified their passing through any man’s ground against all the world, yet God would have this respect paid to the Edomites, to show that no man’s property ought to be invaded under colour of religion.
Dominion is founded in providence, not in grace. Thus when Christ was to pass through a village of the Samaritans, to whom his coming was likely to be offensive, he sent messengers before his face to ask leave, Lu. 9:52.3
There is no biblical warrant for this categorical rejection of national boundaries, because, the Bible does not establish a “right” to immigrate anywhere and establish permanent residence. Still less does the Bible insist that everyone has a “right” to naturalized citizenship in any particular country. I agree entirely with R.L. Dabney when he writes, “The diversity of tongues, characters, races and interests among mankind forbids their union in one universal commonwealth. The aggregation of men into separate nations is therefore necessary; and the authority of the governments instituted over them, to maintain internal order and external defence against aggression, is of divine appointment. Hence, to sustain our government with heart and hand is not only made by God our privilege, but our duty.4

During my discussion on empires and propositional nationhood I stated, “Empires are a cheap imitation of Christ’s spiritual kingdom which will grow to encompass all physical nations and people.” Craig objects and triumphantly declares, “This sentence refutes the entire article. Christ’s Kingdom is in fact an empire which ‘extends over several different tribes, nations, and peoples.’ It is a propositional nation, or a doctrinal nation, or a nation based on faith, not genetics.” This demonstrates the heart of Craig’s misunderstanding of category differences. Empires are international states which attempt to unnaturally unite people from multiple nations, peoples, and tribes into one body politic. This is opposed to the character of Christ’s kingdom which is not of this world (John 18:36). In Craig’s worldview, Christ’s kingdom is simply the empire that ultimately trumps all empires.

This contrasts with the traditional Christian worldview in which the Gospel succeeds in converting the nations and reconciling them to God and to each other. The result of this conversion and reconciliation is that unity is achieved without dispensing with national particularity. Christ’s kingdom is not a mere propositional nation as Craig suggests, but a nation united by a common new birth in Christ (John 3:5), which is analogous to physical nations being united by common physical birth. Craig’s denial of nationhood united by physical birth actually denudes the spiritual nation of 1 Peter 2:9 of its meaning by robbing it of its proper correspondence to physical nationhood. Kinism understands that spiritual unity based upon faith in Christ and national particularity based in ethnicity, tribe, and clan are not in conflict. Thus we have no either/or dilemma posed by Craig since we understand that the two concepts work in harmony. This is the orthodox Trinitarian solution to the age-old problem of the one and the many.

Craig defends the concept of propositional nationhood against my assertion that national identity is rooted in shared heredity. Craig writes, “Propositions require maturity, reason and dominion. Social stability must be based on ‘rightly dividing’ the Propositions of God — not blind, biological ethnology, followed without reason and dominion. . . . [C]itizenship should be based on God’s Propositions, not blood.” This is essentially the same kind of straw-man argumentation accompanied by false dichotomy that we saw earlier from Craig. I never said, nor would any Kinist argue, that we promote ethnonationalism without reason or biblical morality. We believe this because these concepts are not in conflict, and ethnonationalism itself is derived from biblical law. We affirm strongly that all nations are obliged to obey God’s commandments, since this is the heart of Christian discipleship that Jesus commanded in the Great Commission (Matt. 28:19-20). If nations in covenant with God apostatize, then they will lose the blessings that God had conveyed upon them and consequently lose their place until they repent (Lev. 26; Deut. 28). Craig seems to conflate racial and ethnic solidarity with political support when he states, “For a white person in San Diego to feel more loyalty to Mitt Romney in Massachusetts over another person in Tijuana is unBiblical.

Kinism does not teach that we ought to support certain politicians simply because they are of our race. Rather, we seek a homogeneous society in which people will be governed by their own so that race will not be a factor in what policies are enacted, since they can be weighed on their own merits. It is today’s multiracial and multicultural America in which ethnic and racial minorities simply vote the party line of their race, leaving the white majority to split over policy disagreements. In an ethno-state, which is what America was traditionally, this would not be an issue. In my original article I contrasted the traditional understanding of national identity as arising from a shared ancestry with the modern understanding of nationhood as derived from shared principles or values. I pointed out that propositional nations inevitably degenerate into conflict over differences in interpretation of the shared propositions to which a nation supposedly adheres as the foundation of their identity. Craig disagrees with my endorsement of nationhood being tied to ancestry and argues in favor of national identity being tied to ideas rather than heredity. Regarding my contention that propositions such as freedom, democracy, or tolerance are reduced to abstractions when they are made the basis of national identity, Craig responds, “‘Differences in interpretation’ is a hackneyed secular attack on the Bible itself. Christianity is a religion of Propositions. It is a Propositional ‘holy nation.’ Blood should not take preference over doctrine.

In response, a few clarifications are necessary. First, while I believe that nations are defined by heredity – to be an Englishman your ancestors must be predominantly English – this does not mean that shared values, morals, or religious beliefs are unimportant. It is essential for the health of all nations that they embrace Christian faith, morals, and values. It is also essential that nations have a healthy sense of their own particular identity and culture, and this particularity is not in conflict with the universality of Christian principles. Secondly, my criticism was and is aimed at abstract propositions that constitute the prevailing mainstream idea of American identity such as freedom, democracy, and tolerance, not on the perspicuity of the Bible or its teachings. All nations will be blessed or cursed by God based upon their obedience or disobedience to God’s law (Jer. 18:7-10), but this does not define the nation itself. The same can be said for individual families. All families should abide by God’s law, but the family itself is defined and formed by marriage and reproduction.

Craig’s commitment to libertarianism is especially evident in his application of the non-aggression principle5 even to the punishment of crime by the civil magistrate. Craig believes that no one possesses the authority to properly punish even the most heinous of crimes. Craig writes, “In a Christian libertarian Theocracy, child molestation will be unacceptable. But violence will also be an unacceptable response to child molestation, which is why it will be ‘legal’ — that is, no government violence will be meted out against perpetrators. . . . In a Libertarian Theocracy, no ‘government’ of a political type is involved, but there is obviously more ‘government’ in terms of self-government, neighborhood government, workplace government, commercial government, etc. All voluntary. All non-violent. This process would work to reduce crimes by thieves, embezzlers, shoplifters (all of whom would be required to make restitution to their victims), murderers, abortionists, child molesters and homosexuals.

Craig’s commitment for libertarian non-aggression is also apparent in another article in which he describes abortion as a financial problem. He even approvingly quotes from socialist Ron Sider, who laments a lack of Christian tithing as a major cause of poverty, which Craig links to abortion. Like Marxism, libertarianism is primarily and almost exclusively concerned with material (“bread alone”) circumstances of human interactions. Both philosophies see social problems and their solutions as being intrinsically tied to economic considerations. While overly intrusive government policies have certainly reduced many to poverty, and this undoubtedly corresponds to abortion rates, the problem is obviously much larger than mere fiscal considerations. When a heinous crime such as abortion is committed, a legitimate civil magistrate has the duty to see that this crime is punished.

I believe that Craig’s libertarian view is an overreaction to the rampant statism prevalent in contemporary Western society. There are certainly many Christians today who blindly support the overextension and expansion of government authority. Among the passages of the Bible that are among the most abused today stands Romans 13:1-5: “Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God. Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation. For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same. For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil. Wherefore ye must needs be subject, not only for wrath, but also for conscience sake.

Much could be said about what this passage does not mean. St. Paul is most certainly not giving civil magistrates a blank check to govern in any way they see fit. The good and evil mentioned in this passage are not determined by the magistrate or by the will of the majority, but have been set forth by God in His word. This passage does clearly teach, contra Craig and libertarianism, that there are legitimate civil magistrates with the power to punish crimes, and to do so with the sword. There is no reason to believe, as Craig does, that voluntary organizations could adequately redress the social ills caused by the crimes that he has listed above. In particular, willful premeditated murder requires the death penalty, because of man’s creation in the image and likeness of God (Gen. 9:6; cf. Num. 35:31). It is cruelty to victims for society to neglect the punishment of the perpetrators of crime (Prov. 12:10b), and people will be encouraged to do evil if it continues to go unpunished (Eccl. 8:11; cf. Prov. 28:1). There is simply no biblical basis to dispense with the role of the civil magistrate as Craig does because of his commitment to libertarianism.

Craig’s Belief in the Radical Discontinuity Between the Old and New Testament

Craig’s steadfast commitment to libertarianism naturally leads him into conflict with the nationalism expressed throughout the Bible, the Old Testament in particular. Throughout his website he constantly promotes what he refers to as theocracy, but it becomes evident in his response to my article that this is not the same thing as traditional theonomy. Traditionally theonomists have recognized that moral precepts taught in the Old Testament are still obligatory in the fullest sense. Craig agrees with this, as is apparent from his comments throughout his response. I would add that the moral law applies to the civil magistrate as well, and he is obligated to punish criminal behavior in accordance with the moral law. There are also ceremonial laws that are no longer obligatory because they acted as placeholders until they were fulfilled by the ministry of Christ. These would include the Temple sacrifices and laws regulating ceremonial cleanness. Craig would likewise agree on the abrogation of the ceremonial laws.

Craig’s consistent position throughout his response is that laws governing Israel’s national identity are no longer applicable. Craig summarizes his position thusly, “Israel is no longer given to us as an example of how Godly nations are to operate, at least in terms of genealogy, land laws, and cleansing laws.” This statement is made in opposition to what I had asserted about Deuteronomy 4:5-7 teaching that Israel and her laws precisely were given to Israel to demonstrate how godly nations are to operate. Craig makes several statements in which he rejects evidence for ethnonationalism on the basis of the precepts given to ancient Israel:
  • There is no Biblical correlation between Christ’s fulfillment of Old Covenant seed and land laws, and America’s rejection of ‘the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God,’ e.g., marriage, homosexuality, etc. We should observe the latter but not the former.
  • Israel reckoned lineage because the nation had a divine call to serve as an incubator for the Messiah. Israel’s tribal lineage no longer means diddly. Ethinic heritage doesn’t count for anything. . . . Israel’s genealogy had to do with God’s promised Messiah. The Messiah has come, the promises have been fulfilled and all those laws that had to do with preserving family lines (e.g., Levirate laws), have served their purpose, and obeying them today in effect denies that the Messiah has come.
  • Deuteronomy 4:5-8 “does not command nations today to have a temple, levitical priests and offerings on an altar, nor does it command any nation today to be ‘reckoned hereditarily by lineage.’ Those laws having to do with the fulfillment of Jacob’s messianic prophecy — seed laws and tribal laws — were annulled with the resurrection/ascension of Christ. This prophecy announced: ‘The sceptre shall not depart from Judah, nor a lawgiver from between his feet, until Shiloh come; and unto him shall the gathering of the people be’ (Gen. 49:10). Seed laws were tribal laws that preserved Judah’s line.
  • God does not care about ‘physical inheritance’ as He did leading up to the birth of the promised Messiah.
The heart of the disagreement lies in what are sometimes called the civil precepts given to Israel. These are laws particular to their unique context in the ancient world. The general principles of these laws remain binding, even if the specific precept no longer applies to our contemporary circumstances. An example of this is the precept in Deuteronomy 22:8, which instructs the Israelites to build a barrier or parapet around the roofs of their houses. The purpose behind this commandment is to make the house safe for human occupation. The specific commandment does not apply in most contemporary houses in which roofs are uninhabitable because they are steep and not designed for the same purpose as ancient houses. The underlying principle is still binding, in that we are still required to make sure that our buildings are reasonably safe for human occupation. The Westminster Confession of Faith states regarding the civil precepts of the Law, “To them also, as a body politic, He gave sundry judicial laws, which expired together with the State of that people; not obliging under any now, further than the general equity thereof may require.6

Craig disagrees with theonomists in general and Kinists in particular on this equitable application of underlying principles of Israel’s civil code. This disagreement is foundational to the difference between Craig’s libertarian worldview and our Kinist worldview. Craig himself concedes that the Old Testament actually does regulate Israel’s national existence in a manner consistent with Kinism. He writes, “You can see land and seed (‘blood and soil’) in the Old Covenant, but not after the Coming of Christ and the ingathering of the Gentiles.” If Craig is wrong about his rejection of Old Testament laws which regulate inheritance, qualifications for civil magistrate, and national identity, then Craig’s entire case falls apart. Craig actually concedes that “blood and soil” were indeed important in the Old Covenant, but contends that all of these laws and their underlying principles are expired in Christ.

In order to understand Deuteronomy 4:5-7, we must look at what God is telling the Israelites and how it can be applied today. This passage reads,
Behold, I have taught you statutes and judgments, even as the LORD my God commanded me, that ye should do so in the land whither ye go to possess it. Keep therefore and do them; for this is your wisdom and your understanding in the sight of the nations, which shall hear all these statutes, and say, Surely this great nation is a wise and understanding people. For what nation is there so great, who hath God so nigh unto them, as the LORD our God is in all things that we call upon him for? And what nation is there so great, that hath statutes and judgments so righteous as all this law, which I set before you this day?”7
From this passage we can deduce that the animating principles of the laws regulating Israel’s national existence would apply to other nations as well. Nations besides Israel had kings and rulers; why shouldn’t they follow the law of kin-rule set forth in Deuteronomy 17:15? Nations besides Israel owned land and passed it on through inheritance; why shouldn’t they protect their land from foreign ownership as in Leviticus 25? The issue of specifically applying Old Testament civil law is not unique to Craig, as many theonomists also struggle with this problem. I agree with Mickey Henry, who succinctly describes the problems with applying the law within the theonomic camps.
The Law of God is an unchanging coherent unity with peculiar contextual applications. Remove the Law’s coherence, and it becomes a collection of unconnected fragments without comprehensive animating principles. Remove the Law’s unique application to peculiar contexts, and it becomes anachronistic, irrelevant, arbitrary, and ultimately contradictory. Within the theonomic movement, both errors have found expression. In the Rushdoony camp, context is frequently ignored and the realization of a Christian law-order largely presented as a brick-for-brick rebuilding of national Israel. In the North camp, the Law is stripped of its unity, with a sophisticated system of contrivances introduced to edit, revise, and amend the Law to an unrecognizable New Covenant era transmogrification.8
Like Gary North, Kevin Craig reads the biblical law through his libertarian lens. A recurring argument that Craig makes is that the “blood and soil” laws of the Old Testament were given exclusively for the purpose of establishing the identity of the Messiah. He claims that Israel had a “divine call to serve as an incubator for the Messiah,” and consequently “[s]eed laws were tribal laws that preserved Judah’s line.” I believe that Craig has failed to prove his case in regards to his application (or lack thereof) of the Bible’s teachings on national identity. The Temple, Levitical priesthood, and sacrificial system were given specifically to the nation of Israel (Romans 9:4), whereas we should reasonably infer that laws protecting national and tribal identity are intended to serve all nations and tribes. The objective and meaningful existence of different nations and peoples is assumed throughout the Bible, so we must conclude that laws regarding national identity are intended for their benefit. Laws specific only to Israel are often explicitly disannulled by the teachings of the New Testament, but we find no indication that the normative meaning of national identity has been changed anywhere by Christ or the Apostles. When Christ tells the Apostles to disciple the nations (Matt. 28:19), there is no indication whatsoever that anything other than the traditional meaning of a nation as a hereditary outgrowth of extended families is intended.

The result of this radical reinterpretation of the Law by North and his disciples in conformity with their libertarian presuppositions is that traditional concepts like nationhood itself must be jettisoned in favor of a purely creedal abstraction. All passages establishing ethnonationalism are simply explained away as temporary provisions for protecting the bloodline of the Messiah. This naturally raises questions about the validity of this underlying premise. Are all the laws which define and protect Israel’s ethnic and tribal identity simply concerned with the lineage of Messiah? Why should we be concerned with Messiah’s lineage in the first place, if He came to abrogate physical nationhood? Why did laws such as the Zelophehad adoption and tribal inheritance (Num. 27; 36) and the law of levirate marriage (Deut. 25:5-6) apply to all the tribes of Israel rather than just the tribe of Judah? Why were all the tribes and clans governed by their own governors and princes (Deut. 1:13-16)?

The idea that only the Messiah’s lineage was important is nowhere stated in Scripture, and the application of these relevant laws beyond the Judahite lineage of Christ indicates that the concern is not as limited as Craig or other libertarians suggest. The end result of this is to conclude that the “blood and soil” precepts given to ancient Israel were not exclusive to the tribe of Judah or even to the nation of Israel itself. As per Deuteronomy 4:5-8, the underlying principles of these laws are to train the nations in the ways of righteousness. This is currently being accomplished as the Great Commission is being fulfilled, and the sanctification of the races and nations under the authority of Christ will occur at the conclusion of history. Craig’s false understanding of the nature of biblical law leads him into a false eschatology. Kinists believe that the nations brought under the obedience of Christ will sanctify and preserve them for all eternity. In Craig’s view, the separate nations are to “bleed into one” and lose their unique identity as they are incorporated into one empire. We will deal with Craig’s false eschatology in the next article.

  1. Another good treatment of the issue of immigration can be found on Iron Ink, “Marinov’s Mistakes on Immigration,” by Pastor Bret McAtee. 
  2. See also Jacob’s request to the Egyptian Pharaoh to dwell in the land of Goshen (Gen. 47:4). 
  3. Matthew Henry, Commentary on the Whole Bible, Numbers 20
  4. R.L. Dabney, “The Christian Soldier” (1862), cited in “Presentation: Christianity and Race” by Nathanael Strickland 
  5. For an excellent overview of the errors of the non-aggression principle, see under the heading “The Falsity of the Non-Aggression Principle” in Nil Desparandum’s article, “‘Open Borders, but No Freebies': Refuting Doug Wilson’s Libertarian Position on Immigration.” 
  6. Westminster Confession of Faith, XIX:4. For a thorough treatment on the Law of God and its application see here, chapter 19. 
  7. Emphasis mine 
  8. See “American Vision’s Joel McDurmon Turns His Back on the South” by Mickey Henry on Tribal Theocrat

NYT’s “End the Gun Epidemic”

via TradYouth

Nations have always been with us, but a lot of people forget why humanity’s organized into separate nations. The reason is that different tribes of humans have such dramatically different religious, political, and moral outlooks that it doesn’t make sense of them to live together. We talk a lot about immigrants and different races around here, but make no mistake that the Anglo-American Whites who have become global cosmopolitans are rapidly becoming as alien and hostile to the traditional White American nation as outright foreigners.

The New York Times editorial on the need for “gun control” is Exhibit A. These people obviously have a set of values, priorities, and visions for the future so alien from the rest of us that it serves neither party to carry on pretending we belong to the same nation.
All decent people feel sorrow and righteous fury about the latest slaughter of innocents, in California.
And if a significant subset of the Islamic community is celebrating the tragedy, you’ll make sure to do everything you can to conceal that fact and attack those who brought it up.
Law enforcement and intelligence agencies are searching for motivations, including the vital question of how the murderers might have been connected to international terrorism. That is right and proper.
That’s very magnanimous that you, after careful consideration, have given us permission to consider that maybe perhaps the Islamic radicals who went on a killing spree are perhaps connected in some way to “international” terrorism.
But motives do not matter to the dead in California, nor did they in Colorado, Oregon, South Carolina, Virginia, Connecticut and far too many other places.
Wait. If motives do not matter in South Carolina, can we have our Confederate flags back? Just last week in Colorado, you were all about the anti-abortion motive. Forgive me if I’m being presumptuous, but it seems like when White Americans kill people, then our identities and motives killed people. And when it’s not a White American, then the guns are what killed people.
The attention and anger of Americans should also be directed at the elected leaders whose job is to keep us safe but who place a higher premium on the money and political power of an industry dedicated to profiting from the unfettered spread of ever more powerful firearms.
Let me rephrase that: “The attention and anger of Americans should also be directed at the elected leaders whose job is to keep us safe but who place a higher premium on the money and political power of a lobby dedicated to profiting from the unfettered immigration of ever more alien and dangerous migrants.”
It is a moral outrage and a national disgrace that civilians can legally purchase weapons designed specifically to kill people with brutal speed and efficiency. These are weapons of war, barely modified and deliberately marketed as tools of macho vigilantism and even insurrection.
The thing is, pajama boy, we believe the Second Amendment was put in place so that citizens could acquire weapons of war. The wording and context has nothing to do with hobby collectors, game hunters, or wildlife defense. The amendment exists as a check to weigh against the threat of a tyrannical government. It was created by and for hard men who can be trusted with firearms. And if America’s become a nation of soft men who can’t be trusted with firearms, then that’s all the more reason for us to stock up.
America’s elected leaders offer prayers for gun victims and then, callously and without fear of consequence, reject the most basic restrictions on weapons of mass killing, as they did on Thursday.
I know how much prayers and Christmas trees upset your gluten-intolerant anti-White secular and/or Jewish sensibilities, and I apologize in advance for any indigestion my hate speech may cause you. But when you come for out triggers, we’re left with no choice but to trigger you. Since the politicians fear being so blunt, allow me to level with you; I don’t care how many innocent lives are lost to gun violence, we’re not handing over our weapons to you. The more shooting that’s going on, the more imperative it is that we’re able to protect ourselves and our loved ones.
They point out that determined killers obtained weapons illegally in places like France, England and Norway that have strict gun laws. Yes, they did.
But at least those countries are trying. The United States is not.
If trying has been shown time and time again to not work, then perhaps we should try something else, mayhaps?
It is not necessary to debate the peculiar wording of the Second Amendment. No right is unlimited and immune from reasonable regulation.
That goes for your right to impose your will on a people you have lost your fellow-feeling for, and who’ve increasingly grown to despise you and your cosmopolitan clique. That right has its limited and is not immune to reasonable resistance.
Certain kinds of weapons, like the slightly modified combat rifles used in California, and certain kinds of ammunition, must be outlawed for civilian ownership. It is possible to define those guns in a clear and effective way and, yes, it would require Americans who own those kinds of weapons to give them up for the good of their fellow citizens.
It’s easier than ever for international terrorists to improvise weapons if they can’t access ordinary firearms, and they quite often do use weapons which are impossible to regulate like firearms, even when they have ready access to firearms. Guns are entirely beside the point. What’s happening in America is a people problem, not a contraption regulation problem.
What better time than during a presidential election to show, at long last, that our nation has retained its sense of decency?
You’ve got it completely upside-down. Presidential election years are when gun control weasels do well to lay low and bide their time. As with amnesty, bailouts, abortion, and everything else you and your oligarch overlords truly want to happen, you have your ways of circumventing and subverting the democratic process to get your way.

A Straight Look at the Jewish Lobby

via Institute for Historical Review

For many years Israel has violated well established standards of international law and has defied numerous United Nations resolutions in its occupation of conquered lands, in extra-judicial killings, and in repeated acts of military aggression.

Most of the world regards Israel’s policies, and especially its oppression of Pal­estinians, as illegal and outrageous. This international consen­sus is reflected, for example, in numerous UN resolutions condemning Israel, which have been approved with overwhelming majorities. / 1

“The whole world,” said United Nations Secretary General Kofi Annan in 2002, “is demanding that Israel withdraw [from occupied Palestinian territories]. I don’t think the whole world ... can be wrong.” / 2

Among the world’s nations, the United States stands out as the most devoted backer of Israel. With very few exceptions, even those American politicians and media figures who might sometimes criticize a particular Israeli policy are, nonetheless, vigorous supporters of Israel -- and not just as a country, but as an emphatically Jewish ethnic-religious state. In spite of occasional disputes over specific policies, the US continues, as it has for years, to provide Israel with crucial military, diplo­matic and financial backing, including more than $3 billion each year in aid.

Why is the US such a staunch bastion of support for the Jewish state?

One person who has spoken candidly about this is Bishop Desmond Tutu of South Africa, who was awarded the 1984 Nobel Peace Prize. Addressing an audience in Boston, he said: “But you know as well as I do that, somehow, the Israeli government is placed on a pedestal [in the US], and to criticize it is to be immediately dubbed anti-Semitic ... People are scared in this country, to say wrong is wrong because the Jewish lobby is powerful -- very powerful.” / 3

Bishop Tutu spoke the truth. Although Jews make up only two or three percent of the US population, they wield immense power and influ­ence – much more than any other ethnic or religious group.

As Jewish author and political science professor Benjamin Ginsberg has pointed out: / 4

"Since the 1960s, Jews have come to wield considerable influence in American economic, cultural, intellectual and political life. Jews played a central role in American finance during the 1980s, and they were among the chief beneficiaries of that decade’s corporate mergers and reorganizations. Today, though barely two percent of the nation’s population is Jewish, close to half its billionaires are Jews. The chief executive officers of the three major television networks and the four largest film studios are Jews, as are the owners of the nation’s larg­est newspaper chain and the most influential single newspaper, the New York Times ... The role and influence of Jews in Ameri­can politics is equally marked ...

“Jews are only three percent of the nation’s population and com­prise eleven percent of what this study defines as the nation’s elite. However, Jews constitute more than 25 percent of the elite journalists and publishers, more than 17 percent of the leaders of important voluntary and public interest organiza­tions, and more than 15 percent of the top ranking civil ser­vants.”

Stephen Steinlight, former Director of National Affairs of the American Jewish Committee, similarly notes the “disproportionate political power” of Jews, which is “pound for pound the greatest of any ethnic/cultural group in America.” He goes on to explain that “Jewish economic influence and power are disproportionately concentrated in Hollywood, television, and in the news industry.” / 5

Two well-known Jewish writers, Seymour Lipset and Earl Raab, point­ed out in their book, Jews and the New American Scene: / 6 “During the last three decades Jews [in the United States] have made up 50 percent of the top two hundred intellectu­als... 20 percent of professors at the leading universities ... 40 percent of partners in the leading law firms in New York and Washington ... 59 percent of the directors, writ­ers, and producers of the 50 top-grossing motion pictures from 1965 to 1982, and 58 percent of directors, writers, and producers in two or more primetime television series.”

Vanity Fair magazine in 2007 published a list of what it calls “the world’s most powerful people” – a lineup of the one hundred most influential media bosses, bankers, publishers, image makers, and so forth, who determine how we view ourselves and the world, and who – directly and indirectly -- shape our lives and our futures. Jews made up more than half of the powerful men and women on the Vanity Fair list, reported a leading Israeli newspaper, The Jerusalem Post. / 7

The Jewish role in American political life is similarly lopsided. The American magazine Mother Jones compiled a list of the 400 leading contributors to the 2000 US national elections. Seven of the first ten were Jewish, as were twelve of the top 20, and 125 of the top 250. / 8

In recent years the single biggest donor to American politicians, by far, has been Sheldon Adelson, a vehemently pro-Zionist Jewish billionaire. In the 2012 US election campaign, the gambling casino magnate and his wife gave tens of millions of dollars to Republican presidential contender Mitt Romney and other pro-Israel candidates, groups and organizations. As The New York Times reported: “Mr. Adelson, whose $38 billion fortune makes him among the richest men in the world, poured roughly $100 million into Republican campaigns in 2012 ...” / 9

The biggest donor to Democratic Party candidates in recent years has been Haim Saban, an Israeli billionaire and global media mogul. Taking note of Saban’s ardent devotion to the Jewish state, The New York Times reported: “He has since emerged as perhaps the most politically connected mogul in Hollywood, throwing his weight and money around Washington, and increasingly, the world, trying to influence all things Israeli. 'I’m a one-issue guy and my issue is Israel,' he said.” / 10   M. J. Rosenberg, a political affairs analyst for The Nation, observed: “Adelson and Saban are top funders, respectively, of the Republican and Democratic parties, although as Adelson points out, 'when it comes to Israel we’re on the same side'.” / 11

A Grip on Hollywood

Michael Medved, a well-known Jewish author and film critic, has written: “It makes no sense at all to try to deny the reality of Jewish power and prominence in popular culture ... Any list of the most influential production executives at each of the major movie stu­dios will produce a heavy majority of recognizably Jewish names.” / 12
One person who has carefully studied this subject is Jonathan J. Goldberg, editor of the influential Jewish community weekly Forward. In his 1996 book, Jewish Power, he wrote: / 13

“In a few key sectors of the media, notably among Hollywood stu­dio executives, Jews are so numerically dominant that calling these businesses Jewish-controlled is little more than a sta­tistical observation ...

“Hollywood at the end of the twentieth century is still an industry with a pronounced ethnic tinge. Virtually all the senior executives at the major studios are Jews. Writers, pro­ducers, and to a lesser degree directors are disproportionately Jewish -- one recent study showed the figure as high as 59 per­cent among top-grossing films.

“The combined weight of so many Jews in one of America’s most lucrative and important industries gives the Jews of Hollywood a great deal of political power. They are a major source of money for Democratic candidates.”

Joel Stein, a columnist for the Los Angeles Times, has written: “As a proud Jew, I want America to know about our accomplishment. Yes, we control Hollywood ... I don’t care if Americans think we’re running the news media, Hollywood, Wall Street or the government. I just care that we get to keep running them.” / 14

A Well-Entrenched Factor

Over the years, this clout has had a profound impact on how Americans feel, think and act. One prominent political figure who has publicly acknowledged this reality is Vice President Joe Biden. In a remarkable address in May 2013, he said that what he called the “immense” and “outsized” Jewish role in the US mass media and cultural life is the single most important factor in shaping American attitudes over the past century, and in driving major cultural-political changes. / 15

Vice President Biden said: “I bet you 85 percent of those [social-political] changes, whether it’s in Hollywood or social media, are a consequence of Jewish leaders in the industry. The influence is immense.” He went on to say: “Jewish heritage has shaped who we are – all of us, us, me – as much or more than any other factor in the last 223 years. And that’s a fact.”

As Biden notes, the Jewish role in American life has long been a formidable one. In 1972, during a private White House meeting that was secretly recorded, President Richard Nixon and the Rev. Billy Graham -- the nation’s best-known Christian evangelist -- spoke frankly about the Jewish grip on the media. Graham said: “This stranglehold has got to be broken or the country’s going down the drain.” To which the president responded: “You believe that?” “Yes, sir,” said Graham. “Oh, boy,” replied Nixon. “So do I. I can’t ever say that [publicly], but I believe it.” / 16

How could all this have happened? Jewish American scholar Alfred M. Lilienthal provided an answer in his detailed 1978 study, The Zionist Connection. He wrote: / 17

“How has the Zionist will been imposed on the American people?... It is the Jewish connection, the tribal solidarity among themselves and the amazing pull on non-Jews, that has molded this unprecedented power ... The Jewish connection covers all areas and reaches every level. Most Americans may not even sense this gigantic effort, but there is scarcely a Jew who is not touched by its tentacles...

“The extent and depth to which organized Jewry reached – and reaches – in the U.S. is indeed awesome ... The most effective component of the Jewish connection is probably that of media control ... Jews, toughened by centuries of persecution, have risen to places of prime importance in the business and financial world... Jewish wealth and acumen wields unprecedented power in the area of finance and investment banking, playing an important role in influencing U.S. policy toward the Middle East ... In the larger metropolitan areas, the Jewish-Zionist connection thoroughly pervades affluent financial, commercial, social, entertainment, and art circles.”

Foreign Policy Role

Because US military might is the most formidable and intrusive in the world, the Jewish-Zionist role in setting American policy has consequences for people far beyond the borders of the United States. In the administration of President George W. Bush a group -- a cabal -- of high-level “neoconservative” Jews played a key role in prodding the United States into war in Iraq. They included: Paul Wolfowitz, Deputy Secretary of Defense; Richard Perle of the Pentagon's Defense Policy Board; David Wurmser in the State Department; and, Douglas Feith, the Pentagon's Undersecretary for Policy. These men acted in accord with Zionist plans to overthrow the Iraqi regime that were already in place well before Bush became president in early 2001. / 18

For well-informed people, this reality is no secret. In Britain, a veteran member of the House of Commons candidly declared in May 2003 that pro-Israel Jews had taken control of America’s foreign policy, and had succeeded in pushing the US and Britain into war in Iraq. Tam Dalyell, a Labour party deputy known as “Father of the House” because he was the longest-serving Member of Parliament, said: “A Jewish cabal have taken over the government in the United States and formed an unholy alliance with fundamentalist Christians ... There is far too much Jewish influence in the United States.” / 19

In Washington, Senator Ernest Hollings was moved to declare that Iraq was invaded to “secure Israel," and that “everybody” knows it. Referring to the reluctance of his Congressional colleagues to openly acknowledge this reality, Hollings said that “nobody is willing to stand up and say what is going on.” Members of Congress, with few exceptions, uncritically support Israel and its policies due to what Hollings called, “the pressures that we get politically." / 20

With Zionist leaders now prodding the United States into new wars against Israel’s adversaries, the cost of the US alliance with the Jewish state is likely to rise even higher in the years to come. / 21

To sum up: Jews wield immense power and influence in the United States. The “Jewish lobby” is a decisive factor in US support for Israel. Jewish-Zionist interests are not identical to American in­terests. In fact, they often conflict.

As long as the “very powerful” Jewish lobby remains entrenched, there will be no end to the Jewish-Zionist domination of the US polit­ical system and the American media, the Zionist oppression of Palestinians, the Israeli threat to peace, and the bloody con­flict between Jews and non-Jews in the Middle East.

1. This consen­sus is reflected in numerous UN resolutions condemning Israel, which have been approved with overwhelming majorities, often with the US and Israel virtually alone in opposition. See, for example: UN Press Release, GA/10179, Oct. 21, 2003. ( ) ; UN General Assembly vote on Dec. 23, 2003, on draft resolution 58/ 229.
( )
2. On April 8, 2002, in Madrid. J. Brinkley, "Israel Starts Leaving… ," The New York Times, April 9, 2002.
( )
3. D. Tutu, “Apartheid in the Holy Land," The Guardian (Britain), April 29, 2002.
(,10551,706911,00.html )
4. Benjamin Ginsberg, The Fatal Embrace: Jews and the State (University of Chicago, 1993), pp. 1, 103.
5. S. Steinlight, "The Jewish Stake in America's Changing Demography: Reconsidering a Misguided Immigration Policy," Center for Immigration Studies, Nov. 2001. ( )
6. Seymour Martin Lipset and Earl Raab, Jews and the New American Scene (Harvard Univ. Press, 1995), pp. 26-27.
7. N. Burstein, “Jewish power dominates at 'Vanity Fair’,” The Jerusalem Post (Israel), Oct.12, 2007.
( )
8. A. Cockburn, “The Uproar Over the Israel Lobby,” May 8 (or 5?), 2006.
( )
9. N. Confessore, E. Lipton, “Seeking to Ban Online Betting, G.O.P. Donor Tests Influence,” The New York Times, March 27, 2014 (; J. Horowitz, “Republican Contenders Reach Out to Sheldon Adelson, Palms Up,” The New York Times, April 26, 2015 ( ) ; E. Lipton, “G.O.P.’s Israel Support Deepens as Political Contributions Shift,” The New York Times, April 4, 2015 ( ) ; See also: M. Gold, P. Rucker, “Billionaire mogul Sheldon Adelson looks for mainstream Republican who can win in 2016,” The Washington Post, March 25, 2015 ( ); P. Stone, “Sheldon Adelson Spent Far More On Campaign Than Previously Known,” The Huffington Post, Dec. 12, 2012 ( )
10. A. R. Sorkin, “Schlepping to Moguldom,” The New York Times, Sept. 5, 2004.
( ) ; “Israeli Billionaire Saban is Biggest Donor to US Politicians,” Ynet News (Israel), Jan. 23, 2007. (,7340,L-3355786,00.html )
11. M. J. Rosenberg, “Sheldon Adelson and Haim Saban: Billionaire Funders for Israel,” The Nation, Dec. 8, 2014
( )
12. M. Medved, “Is Hollywood Too Jewish?,” Moment, Vol. 21, No. 4 (1996), p. 37.
13. Jonathan Jeremy Goldberg, Jewish Power: Inside the American Jewish Establishment (Addison-Wesley, 1996), pp. 280, 287-288. See also pp. 39-40, 290-291.
14. J. Stein, “How Jewish Is Hollywood?,” Los Angeles Times, Dec. 19, 2008.
(,0,4676183.column )
15. Jennifer Epstein, “Biden: 'Jewish heritage is American heritage',” Politico, May 21, 2013.
( ); Daniel Halper, “Biden Talks of 'Outsized Influence' of Jews: 'The Influence Is Immense',” The Weekly Standard, May 22, 2013.
( ) See also: M. Weber , “Vice President Biden Acknowledges 'Immense' Jewish Role in American Mass Media and Cultural Life,” July 2013.
( )
16. “Nixon, Billy Graham Make Derogatory Comments About Jews on Tapes,” Chicago Tribune, March 1, 2002 (or Feb. 28, 2002). ( );
“Billy Graham Apologizes for ’72 Remarks,” Associated Press, Los Angeles Times, March 2, 2002. “Graham Regrets Jewish Slur,” BBC News, March 2, 2002. ( ) The conversation apparently took place on Feb. 1, 1972.
17. A. Lilienthal, The Zionist Connection (New York: Dodd, Mead, 1978), pp. 206, 209, 212, 218, 228, 229.
18. See: John J. Mearsheimer and Stephen M. Walt, The Israel Lobby and US Foreign Policy. New York: Farrar, Straus & Giroux, 2007.
19. F. Nelson, “Anger Over Dalyell's 'Jewish Cabal' Slur,” The Scotsman (Edinburgh), May 5, 2003
( ) ; M. White, “Dalyell Steps Up Attack On Levy,” The Guardian (London), May 6, 2003.
( ).
See also: M. Weber, “Iraq: A War for Israel" ( )
20. M. Weber, “'Iraq Was Invaded to Secure Israel,’ Says Senator Hollings,” July 16, 2004
( )
21. See, for example: M. Weber, “Behind the Campaign for War Against Iran,” April 2013.
( )

The Satanic Alliance: You Really Are "either with us or against us"

via Majority Rights


This article is just a very condensed version of some observations that have been burning on my mind this week and which came up over tea and biscuits during conversations with some of my work colleagues. It may be edifying for European nationalists and regionalists, so I’ve chosen to make a short article about the subjects covered. People should feel free to ask me any questions they like in the comments section, if anyone would like a more expansive explanation about the concepts I’m trying—humorously but with serious intent—to illuminate here.

The somewhat provocative phraseology I’m using here is quite deliberate and is used for a reason that will be explained later on in the article.

Twilight of the Westphalian Model

We are living a world that has progressed and changed significantly since the advent of industrial warfare. In the early 1900s, everything about warfare tended to be the resolution of international disputes through a state actor’s military personnel and machinery clashing in the spacial battlefield until someone was decisively defeated.
Now, this is no longer the case, after the late 1900s and early 2000s, war increasingly has become a matter of non-state actors waging war against other non-state actors, and in the case where states of a Westphalian inspiration came into contradiction with these non-state actors, the Westphalian states’ objective usually was to find a settlement of the conflict that would satisfy the commercial and geostrategic needs of those nations. The battle also takes place in ‘hearts and minds’, getting hearts and minds on one’s side has become not just an optional extra, but in many cases can be a crucial and decisive element of strategy.

The battle of ‘hearts and minds’ is happening in the case where you have to influence a ‘foreign’ population to co-operate with and support military operations that you are conducting inside their territory, or the case where you have to convince a ‘foreign’ population that your occupation of their territory is capable of providing safety and stability through effective counter-terrorism operations.

Increasingly, these same needs apply within the North Atlantic states as well, because we are actually now in a new generation of warfare. This is 5th generation warfare, not 4th generation warfare now. The events which took place in France on 13 November 2015 were a stark sign of that transition between generations having taken place.

ISIL’s attack on Paris was not just an attack against state infrastructure in an attempt to affect the French government’s policy preferences. It was not an attack that could be understood within the context of the Westphalian state model, or the world order that this model had given rise to. Instead, it was an attack against the Westphalian state model itself, and that is why the attackers chose the targets that they chose. They selected places that French people and the foreign residents of other culturally advanced populations would go to enjoy themselves. They chose to deliberately have amongst the assailants a mixture of people carrying Syrian passports alongside people who were second or third generation Muslim residents of European countries such as Belgium.

By selecting the targets in the way that they did, they were announcing that it was a fight of one population against another, one social group against another, in their view, and their intent was to make this fact clear to everyone. We on the other side should not shy away from acknowledging that this is really how it is. They believe that there is a ‘global Ummah’, a community of Muslims unconstrained by national borders, who are trying to uphold and enforce the rules of the Abrahamic monotheistic god over ‘the Kaffir’ who are pagans (this includes people who adhere closely to bonds of blood, which Islamic doctrine considers to be part of ‘Jahiliyyah’), polytheists, atheists, and apostates.

The rise of this kind of view, represents a rise of what is best described as ‘armed social movements’. Social movements have qualities that are distinct from that of traditional Westphalian state structures, even when they come to occupy the seats of power in a state. Armed social movements tend to have a cleanly defined ‘us vs. them’ world view, and the manifestation of state power which is filled by such movements, tends to be an outcome of battles fought in and against civil society, in the terrain of popular culture or through street battles or asymmetrical warfare. The manifestation of state power is not imposed from above, but rather, the manifestation of state power is a sign that the armed social movement has already triumphed among the population itself. The process is ‘bottom up’, rather than ‘top down’.

Armed social movements fight against each other in the terrain of civil society and through popular culture, to determine who will ultimately capture state power in the long term future.

We are an international ‘Satanic Alliance’?

In light of all of the above, the epithet which the jihadists have labelled us with, the epithet ‘Satanic Alliance’ comes into play and is a gateway to understanding the fundamental issue presently facing western civilisation, as well as a method for coming to terms with it.

On 01 November 2015, Al-Qaeda leader Ayman Al-Zawahiri published a sixteen minute video which spread across the Islamic world on social media and jihadist websites, calling for a unified Islamic front against the coalition of groups who are fighting against the imposition of Sharia law, which he described as forming a front against “the Satanic Alliance that attacks Islam”. In his video, he takes a tone toward ISIL which is one of coalition-building, as he is seeking to caution them on the dangers that come from infighting among the various jihadist groups. He doesn’t want ISIL, Jahbat Al-Nusra, and Ahrar Al-Sham to keep fighting against each other over their differences, rather he wants them to suspend their disagreements on who commands the jihadists (ie, Ayman Al-Zawahiri or Abu Bakr Al-Baghdadi?) and how it should be expressed (ie, Islam faithful to the 8th century, or Islam adapted to the 21st century?) and to instead unite against “the Satanic Alliance”, and to “hone” their conduct so that they can convince the other Muslims that they “want to be ruled over by Sharia”.

Whenever I hear these things, I always smile a little, because by saying things like that, they are drawing the lines very cleanly and obviously.

However, within the west there is still a muddled feeling amongst the general population about this, which needs to be ironed out. We are and have been and hopefully will continue to be—objectively speaking—living in an increasingly ‘Satanic’ society, if you take the definition of what ‘Satanic’ means from the religious texts of the three Abrahamic religions.

Look at what those three religions stand for, and then look at what we stand for and what we would like to see manifest, and you discover immediately that—as I’ve said before—we are a threat to the Abrahamic religions, we are their adversary. What does ‘Satan’ mean? It literally means ‘the adversary’.

There are many important distinctions between the two sides, but the most important one in the context of the interests of the readers of Majorityrights is this one:

THEM: Islam—much like Christianity and Judaism—is a religion that actively and aggressively promotes mass race-mixing. It promotes submission to a single god which asserts that it ‘created everything’ and also asserts that this material world is of no real consequence because ‘a test’ of loyalty and submission to the monotheistic god is all that matters.

US: We as ethno-nationalists and ethno-regionalists are opposed to mass race-mixing, because we believe instead in the crucial importance of preserving ties of blood and proximity. Without preserving those ties, it would be impossible for a human being to truly find themselves, without which it would be impossible for human societies to ascend Maslow’s hierarchy with the willpower, the intellectual liberty, and a culture advanced enough to promote the flourishing of the social processes that lead to an understanding of the pure and pristine true reality that existed in the time of the primordial era. Our will is projected into the material world, to shape it to our own form of ‘justice’, not the dictates of some Semitic desert god.

These two views are irreconcilably and diametrically opposed, and always will be.

Two camps: Make a decision, make a choice

Although some find it to be unsettling, the arrival of this amazing narrative brings clarity and doctrinal purity to a situation that previously seemed to lack it. Since 11 September 2001, the middle ground ought to have become entirely vulnerable to erosion. When the planes crashed into the World Trade Centre buildings in 2001, and when the bombs exploded on the trains in Madrid in 2003, and when the bombs exploded on the buses in London in 2005, and now in the wake of the migration crisis and the Paris attacks of 2015, all of these have painted and highlighted—in blood—the existence of two camps before humankind that everyone would have to choose between.

On one hand, there would be ‘the camp of Islam’, a global Ummah which was disjointed and did not have a Caliphate to represent it at the time. They would be the forthright defenders of monotheism and transcendental values in a world where such a defence had been sliding out of fashion. This camp would also include their fellow travellers, and some opportunists.

On the other hand, there would be ‘the Satanic Alliance’, a coalition of people who reject the philosophical basis of Abrahamic monotheism, and form a coalition to defend their material and intellectual interests. These people would struggle against Abrahamic monotheism for diverse reasons. This alliance would underpin the preservation of the beauty and freedom of native peoples everywhere and their ability to determine their own futures (ie, coinciding with the concept of a ‘DNA Nation’) in accordance with the tools—both genetic and memetic—handed down to them by their ancestors on the earth.

Sometimes, unexpected mouths utter statements that are true. George W. Bush actually stumbled partially onto the truth of the existence of this paradigm when he said, “Either you are with us or you are with the terrorists”. Osama bin Laden also once said, “The world today is divided into two camps.”

Both Bush and Bin Laden were essentially correct about that basic reality, although neither of them understood just how correct they were.

All the different operations by the two camps have since served to expose the people who claimed to be ‘in the middle ground’ as being actually through their actions on one side or on the other side, whether they are conscious of it or not.

The shrinking middle ground

Many people on the so-called centre-right, and many so-called radical traditionalists and court ‘historians’ and court ‘scholars’ were immediately exposed by the terrorist attacks and by the wars, and by the mass migration crisis.

All of those who rushed to make apologetics, excuses, and justifications for the Islamists prancing around in their midst, or else, made mealy-mouthed statements about how they ‘respected’ Islam or ‘shared traditional values with them’ and so ‘are internally conflicted on how to react’, or alternately, sought to allocate blame and condemnation onto the victims of Islamic terrorist attacks rather than onto the perpetrators, were all exposed. Some, such as the Jews and the Christians who are milling around among the ruling class in every western state, went so far as to actively campaign for more migrants when the mass migration and infiltration crisis began.

By these actions, they revealed themselves to everyone. Even the most naive observer of political affairs can now be convinced that there really are only two camps.

It is also worth mentioning that in fact, many conservatives of the traditionalist and civic nationalist sort, and almost all social democrats of every stripe, had always been in ‘the camp of Islam’ insofar as they refused to oppose mass migration from the Middle East and Africa, and they refused to criticise the fundamental basis of monotheism itself, restricting themselves only to criticising the methods of the so-called ‘radicals’. Those who walked in ignorance were simply unaware of this, because court ‘historians’ and court ‘scholars’ and the mainstream media had all portrayed them as being opposed, and as a result, their actual complicity with ‘the camp of Islam’ went unrecognised. As a result of this confusion, such persons and groups only appeared to be in the middle ground in the eyes of the ignorant and the uninformed. So it is only in the sense of the perception of the people, that the events since 11 September 2001 have ‘driven’ those people out of the middle ground. In reality they were never in it. It only appeared to be so. A prime example of this would be Angela Merkel and most of the Christian Democratic Union party in Germany. The CDU is firmly in ‘the camp of Islam’, and always has been, it was only in the eyes of the ignorant that it has appeared otherwise (eg, those who were fooled by the false dichotomy of ‘multiculturalism vs. integration’), until recently when it became openly apparent for all to see.

And so the middle ground, and even the perception of there being a middle ground, can now begin to wither. Rather than whining about methods, such as who kills who in what kind of brutal way, we should begin talking about the purpose behind the conflict and what its philosophical and spiritual basis is, and then offer a choice. In other words, we need to get down to the fundamentals.

Be confident

If we, the apparent ‘Satanic Alliance’ can stand together and remain completely and ruthlessly consistent in our narrative and defend the attractiveness and beauty of our Promethean goals, then we can gently—when and where we can—push the dialogue which encourages people to make the choice to join such an ‘alliance’.

In that sense, everything which has happened since 11 September 2001, should be seen not as a disorganised series of tragedies and inconveniences, but rather, as an opportunity, a springboard from which we as ethno-nationalists and ethno-regionalists can jump forward and present—truthfully and with sincerity—the narratives and views of things like ‘the Satanic Alliance’ or ‘the DNA Nation’, ‘the dark side of the Enlightenment’, ‘post-modernity proper’, or ‘taking the kingdom of heaven by force’, or any other thought-form that is grounded in an absolute earthlyness of thought that we care to elucidate.