All Articles

• A Lamentation for These Times
• Absurdity
• Wandering

 A question we are frequently confronted with goes something like “So if Christian Identity is true, why is one of the Magi a black man?” But of course, none of the Magi, or “wise men”, were black, and originally Christians would not even have conceived of such a notion.

The ancient Parthians, Persians and Medes were all originally and predominantly White people, while the occupants of Mesopotamia and the Near East today are basically comprised of mixed-race arabs, even if they do not consider themselves to be arabs.
A Parthian Soldier circa 2nd c. BC.The people of these regions became genetic arabs after they were conquered by the Islamic hordes in the 7th century and forcibly converted to the Mohammedan religion, whereafter they were amalgamated with both the arabic and Turkic races, among others. But in earlier times, wherever they were portrayed by the ancient Greek and Roman writers and artists, they were clearly depicted as being White, and from these came the Magi who visited the Christ child. The story of the Magi is related in the Gospel of Matthew, in chapter 2, where the King James Version has "wise men" for the plural form of the Greek word μάγος, or magus. According to the earliest of Greek historicans, Herodotus, the Magi were originally a priesthood among the Medes and Persians, and they were mentioned on the Behistun inscription of the Persian emperor, Darius the Great.

In answer to recent heretics who have divided themselves into a new sect, which we will describe as "Materialist Identity", or perhaps "Prosperity Identity", and who have even accused us of having no faith, because we refuse to believe in their dreams or their so-called "law of attraction":

If John Kennedy were a pastor rather than a President, he may have said “Ask not what God can do for you, ask what you can do for your people”, and that would be a fair assessment of Yahshua Christ’s own instructions to His disciples. Before you can criticize the faith of others, you must consider this: What have you ever really done on behalf of your people, and not on behalf of yourselves?

The full article has a larger version of this video at the end of the story.

First, James Fields did not kill Heather Heyer. The fact is that Heyer, a grossly overweight slob, was out running around the streets on a hot summer day and her heart simply couldn't take the added stress and excitement. That is not James Fields' problem, that Heather Heyer collapsed and died of a heart attack. Heyer was not struck by Fields' car. The woman who was struck, and photographed on the hood of Fields' car, is not Heather Heyer.

But that is not all. Now it is apparent that Fields certainly had reason to believe that his life was in danger. A sodomite college professor and Antifa extremist named Dwayne Dixon, member of an Antifa group named Redneck Revolt, has openly bragged on Facebook that he chased down Fields with a rifle....

Michael Hoffman recently wrote an article announcing that the “Prominent Washington D.C. Monument to Masonic Confederate General Albert Pike is untouched”. The issue is not new to us. However the question he may have asked is why Washington D.C. ever had a monument to a Confederate general in the first place. Of the eighteen Civil War-related monuments in the U.S. capital, there are no others dedicated to figures of the Confederacy. But why should there be one to Albert Pike?

A look into the history of the Pike monument in Washington reveals that it was planned, commissioned, and paid for by Scottish Right Freemasons. When a group representing Union soldiers found that its erection in the capital was planned, they protested to Congress, but Congress nevertheless approved of its placement within the city, “after Masons assured them it would depict Pike as a civilian, not a soldier” [Jacob, Kathryn Allamong (1998). Testament to Union: Civil War Monuments in Washington, D.C. JHU Press: JHU Press. pp. 59–62].

Tonight my wife and I went to Waffle House for supper after shopping. We sat in a booth next to a booth containing an old guy wearing a Vietnam Veteran hat and his wife who are toting around a little mixed mongrel baby. Maybe his granddaughter or maybe even great granddaughter, I don't know. He was holding the kid and smiling and cooing with it, obviously happy with some aspect of his family's racial extinction.

I was thinking to myself, here's this Vietnam veteran, maybe he was drafted or maybe he volunteered but he fought against international Communism on the far side of the planet. He had to witness its horrors. He had to understand the tenets, the ideologies of Judeo-Communism and what they want to push on our Western world. Or did he? Did he care? Did he know that he was supporting and promoting the death of our civilization or even of his own blood line? Did he feel trapped and powerless to do anything about his family's situation and figured he'd just try to make the best of it or did he condone it? Did he love his daughter or granddaughter so much that he would tolerate her destroying his descendants? Or was this old veteran who had seen the horrors of war such a coward that he feared the label of "racist" more than he feard Communist bullets, mines and schrapnel? I couldn't understand it....