All Articles

There are only two possible options: one is either racial, or one is genocidal. The racist seeks to preserve the genetic heritage, the nature and the culture of his own race. The opposite is the misogenist (not to be confused with misogynist), which is one who hates his race, because miscegeny – the mixing of the races – is a cause of genocide, and is a destroyer of all races. Genesis chapter eleven, where even one race – the Adamic or White – was separated into separate nations by Yahweh their God, along with Deuteronomy 32:4 and Acts 17:26, demonstrate the fact that racial and national separatism is defined and mandated by Yahweh God. Therefore, multiculturalism is rebellion against Yahweh God. The Tower of Babel event, although only the White race which descended from Noah was involved, is nevertheless representative of a model of multi- culturalism. Babel, from which we also have the name Babylon, is a Hebrew word which means confusion.

6/25/08:

The White liberal is a misogenist: he must hate his race, because he insists that it should be mixed with the non-White races. Therefore, the White liberal is a cancer cell in the body of the White race, and every mongrelized family is a malignant tumor. If the average White liberal (usually a simple-minded follower of ideas which are perceived to be lofty, just, and good, but in reality are purely evil) could know what is really in the mind of the average negro or ladino, chances are that he may very well rethink his support of multiculturalism and diversity, unless, of course, he truly does relish the idea of the destruction of the White race.

When the White liberal hears the slogan “social justice”, it very often invokes thoughts such as those represented by the slogans of the wicked French revolutionaries, such as “Liberte, Egalite, Fraternite”, and the supposed “universal brotherhood of man”, or that idea – always taken out of context – that somehow “all men are created equal”, which was expressed in the American Declaration of Independence.

Yet what the White liberal does not realize – even though it is glaringly evident in negro art and literature – is that when the average negro hears the term “social justice”, he thinks of something quite different. To the negro, this term means the enslavement of the White man, the absconding of all property, and the enthronement of the negro. Every negro becomes a plantation owner, and every White man a slave. Every negro would have a stable of White women to abuse, and there would be no more White children. This – to the negro – is heaven and redemption and “social justice”. It is also the common rhetoric of negro religions such as Rastafarianism, the Nation of Islam, and black so-called Christian “Liberation Theology” (as if there could possibly ever be black Christians), which is popular and prominent in so many black churches today. This negro mindset is justified as retribution for the perceived sins of the practice of slavery which is attributed by the negro to all Whites, even though only a very small percentage of Whites had ever engaged in slavery. And in spite of the fact that a much greater number of Whites labored and suffered to end slavery, without any appreciation from the descendants of the slaves, who would rather conquer them instead of expressing any form of gratitude.

For the reasons opined here in previous posts – even without discussing the perils of miscegenation – it can clearly be countenanced that the racist nation is the nation which endures, and a non-racist nation cannot possibly continue in its traditions and cultural institutions without falling into intermittent states of chaos, strife, and poverty: its culture eventually decaying into a shadow, even a remnant, of its former grandeur.

Fascism is not the ideal political system for Christians, however it is a far better system than the two alternatives which the popular social theorists and the princes of this world offer to us today: Socialism (Marxism) or Capitalism (maybe it should be called Rothschildism).

In the capitalist system, capital is invested in an enterprise, which then functions solely fror the advantage of the “owner”, or shareholder, in a way that stresses the maximization of profits at the expense of all else. The only legal responsibility of any corporation is to work for the enrichment of the shareholder – aside from the restrictions which the government places upon it, such as tax laws and agency compliance.

In the fascist system, capital may indeed profit the owner, or shareholder, yet the State ensures that the capital is invested and functions in such a way that the nation as a whole benefits, or at least that the interests of the nation are safeguarded. In many ways, even the United States has adopted a sort of fascism, albeit a pharisaical sort, through the burdensome regulations of its many agencies. Yet these do not protect the interests of the nation in the same manner or to the extent that the fascist system would.

The Bible tells us that Yahweh (simply “God” to most people) created Adam. The creation of Adam is first described in Genesis 1:26-27. The word translated “man” in this passage is indeed the same word, and refers to the same being, described in more detail in the next part of Genesis, which begins at 2:4. Many years ago these were separate scrolls and separate accounts – albeit about much the same thing – later consolidated into a single “book” by men. The third part of Genesis begins at 5:1, and in another way the story of the creation of “adam” man is again related. It turns out, however, that the Hebrew meaning of “adam” isn’t quite the same as the modern meaning of the word “man”, which nowadays is basically used to describe any full-grown male anthropoid. In fact, “adam” signifies only those full-grown anthropoids of which the blood can be seen through the skin. This condition is called ruddiness, and is peculiar to the (true) White race. This is also evident further on in the Bible, to anyone who actually knows history. A thorough examination of the families of Genesis chapter 10 reveals that many of these nations can be identified in history and archaeology, and that they were all originally White nations. Many of them eventually became “arab” (a Hebrew word which means “mixed”), or even negroid, through a process known as miscegenation, but originally they were all White.

The Saxon and Keltic peoples who colonized the North American continent in the 17th and 18th centuries were self-reliant Christian men and women, who for the most part were moral and faithful, whose God was the God of the Bible and whose guiding light was Yahshua (or Jesus) Christ. As Christians everywhere should do, they looked to their God for His inspiration of their own ability and initiative to solve all of their problems and to meet all of their challenges. From these ideals alone came the founding documents of this nation – some of the greatest political documents Man has ever devised – and in short time the greatest, most ingenious and productive nation which the world has ever known emerged upon that sure foundation: for these United States are the only nation (properly a federation of nation states) in the history of Man which was ever founded wholly upon Christian principles.

The ADL, or Anti-Defamation League, a sort of legal protection racket that endeavors to ensure that no Jew is ever criticized, regardless of the merits of the criticism, has recently mentioned both Eli James and myself in an article on their website (click here for the article). Upon mentioning the common name which describes, in part, our particular Christian theology, “Christian Identity”, they immediately give a link to a description of a list of men who were all allegedly Christian Identity adherents and who all supposedly committed crimes of one sort or another (for which click here).

Just another ignorant yard ape to whom some jew sold a shiny new suit. Any White man that thinks that we should "just get along" with these beasts must be absolutely blind.

Constantly confronted with what I believe to be poor interpretations of Scripture, people often take it personally when I disagree with them. This essay will, I hope, present what I believe are the most reliable methods for interpreting the Bible, and reflect the methods that I have endeavored to employ in my translations, my essays, and all of my studies.

All too often, interpretations of Scripture are offered where it is obvious that verses are taken out-of-context, meaning that the related statements in the rest of Scripture have not been thoroughly considered when an opinion concerning a passage in question was first formulated. If we can accept Scripture as the inspired Word of Yahweh our God, then we must realize that no passage of Scripture can be taken out of context and understood apart from all of the others, and also that no two passages of Scripture can conflict with one another. Where two passages seem to conflict, it is evident that the understanding of the person who notices the conflict is at fault, and not either of the passages of Scripture.