On June 8th in the year of our Lord 2017, Senator Bernie Sanders cross-examined a candidate for Deputy White House Budget Director, Russell Vought, in the course of which Sanders not only claimed Vought’s Christianity to preclude him from public office, but also that the Christian faith is contrary “to what this country is supposed to be about.” Yes, he really said that.

The evangelical community has responded with shock and dismay. It rocks them back on their heels, because they expect non-Christians to hold their same assumptions about religious pluralism. Modern evangelicals are, after all, quite liberal and insist America to have been founded for every breed and creed under heaven. And they expect all those groups to function on essentially the same understanding of tolerance, reciprocally inclusive of Christianity as much as any other faith. Even Sabbatean saboteurs like Sanders.

But it just doesn’t work that way.

Which reminds me of something a farmer friend shared recently — a bit of correspondence between himself and some of his fellow sodbusters. The topic under consideration was foreign labor, in regard to dairy hands specifically, which without saying so, means Mexicans. And minus one (my friend), this little grange enjoyed a consensus on the topic, giving hearty approval to mass non-White colonization of our fathers’ land. Their argument boiled down to, “Agricultural work makes you an American. So Mexican ag workers are far more American than the majority of White Americans.” Funny, our founders would never have guessed that all those Indian savages they fought for generations were all just good ol’ American boys the whole time.

You’d think these fellas living closer to the land would have a more durable sense of heritage, but it appears the industrialization of their trade, not to mention ubiquitous propaganda, has been sufficient to uncouple them, no less than the cubicle-dweller, from both natural and special revelation.

But my yeoman friend called his fellows to account, arguing that Mexicans are “incapable of participating in a system of government built on the Magna Carta.”

Which evinced palpable astonishment amongst his opponents, one asking incredulously, “Do you somehow think Hispanic people are incapable of following English common law?”

Haha! I can’t even repeat it without laughing.

To which my friend offered a most apt rejoinder — “How well do they follow our immigration law?” And thus concluded the conversation. My friend had refuted them, and with style; but they no doubt regarded such a rejoinder as too frank to be accepted. To the creed of the multicult, candor just ain’t cricket.

Okay, in abstract, we understand that the liberals are slave to PC propaganda, but I mean, really, how does one muster the temerity, the sheer audacity, to suggest that Azteca denizens of Tijuana are inclined to Anglo-Saxon ideals?

The Magna Carta was a charter drafted on behalf of a European folk asserting their national independence under God against internationalism, represented at the time by Rome. Therein the English people solemnized their own existence and self-defense for their own preservation from the aggressions of the empire, as well as certain minority ethne such as the Jews, whose avarice and control are expressly checked against in that very document.

So the notion that Mexicans and like equatorials aggressing upon our borders and national independence are assimilable to the Anglo-Saxon conception of rights is absurd on its face. Magna Carta condemned such ideas outright. For their very presence here occurs only under the presumption that it is their right to invade and occupy our land. In fact, they believe our land is actually not ours at all, but theirs, and popularly express intent to drive Europeans from the continent. So, by definition, they cannot uphold even the most basic sentiment of Magna Carta, because their very presence is a denial of it. Fact is, their entire worldview of Reconquista liberationism is nothing less than a repudiation of Anglo-Saxon Christian law in its every expression. Which is why so many noted Anglo thinkers like Jack London concluded that Mestizos were not only incompatible with Western civilization, but had little to no aptitude for self-government or civilization of any sort.

Even the libertarian notion of some right for foreigners to freely participate in our economy is founded not in Christian common law, but in Marxism. Yes, what is today ironically termed by capitalists the “free flow of labor” is a concept pioneered under that infamous slogan, “Workers of the world, unite!” Far from an American, Anglo-Saxon, or Christian concept, the notion of men being interchangeable cogs in some supranational economic machine descends from purely secular-humanist presuppositions, Marxism in specific. The proximate antithesis of Christian law.

Though some may still pretend otherwise, the inassimilability of non-Whites to Western, and more particularly, American civilization is plain for all to see. California, which had been the reddest of all red states in the 80s, has transformed into an ironclad Democrat stronghold by way of one central dynamic — Mexican immigration.

It isn’t even a controversial statement. In fact, it is the standard refrain of the Left now, that conservative patriots need to just accept that traditional American values are going to be put down forever because Whites are no longer the majority. Sure, they used to be scandalized whenever Whites suggested that demographics are destiny, but that was only until their numbers began to eclipse ours; since then they proclaim triumphally that demographics are indeed destiny and non-Whites are openly committed to overturning all the social, legal, and ethical foundations of our society. This, they insist, is the new definition of true American patriotism that White people could never understand: the abolishment of the faith and folk that founded America — White Christianity.

So let’s be frank — when we speak of modern Democrats, we aren’t talking about well-intentioned patriots of alternate perspective, but rather, at best, a menagerie of aliens, witches, traitors, the criminally insane, and Janissaries of various worldviews antithetical to Western civilization. The Democrats aren’t a political party, but a coalition of enemy insurgents united only in their hatred of our folk and faith and their lust for all that is ours.

Which is not to say that the GOP represents the real American ethos either, just that they aren’t monolithically bent on our destruction.

The history of minority relations in this country makes evident that the perspectives of those various peoples grasping for control are not only intrinsically anchored to their ethnic identities, but also, defined in contradistinction to traditional American identity and values. As regards Mexicans, for instance, historical opposition to the gabachos and gringos del Norte is integral to their national identity. From the time of Cortez to present, the Mexican identity has been formed and framed in juxtaposition to Europeans. That isn’t erased by the magic of American welfare, Big Macs, or the re-creation of Chiapas in America.

While the “propositional nation” advocates insist breed is irrelevant to creed, their entwinement is obvious and inextricable. Though denouncing the fact whenever we broach it, our enemies even admit as much when they say, “Of course you believe that, you’re a White man!,” “You can’t understand because you’re White!,” or “All y’all White people racist, yo.” So too do they concede the point when they speak of America as a “white supremacist country.”

Ours, a European-stock nation founded, in the words of our Constitution, “for us and our posterity,” was predicated upon “self-evident” and “God-given rights” that they alternately called “the Rights of Englishmen.” To a man, they understood those rights to appertain to our folk within our own limited jurisdictions and within the context of our own history and civilization. But they did not even entertain the idea of those rights applying to other races in the same ways and in the same place. This is why Indians and Africans were precluded from citizenship as a matter of course in all our colonial and founding documents; they were different orders of men entirely, who had their own rights peculiar to them within their own jurisdictions as well. For the members of a family enjoy rights exclusive to themselves in the context of their own house and clan; blood heirs have a birthright not shared with neighbor children in the same house. Though the neighbor children, depending upon their circumstance, may have like claims in their own families that likewise preclude us.

Surveying the history of repudiating this reality (the 1860s onward), attempting to superimpose American liberties upon non-Whites, the denial of their exclusivity only proves it the more. What I mean is, the perspectives endemic to different races and religions preclude any harmonious and unitary understanding of our rights, and especially banish all traditional Christian conception thereof.

Let us count the ways:

Freedom of Religion

This term and its equivalents like religious liberty, and liberty of conscience, mean something insurmountably different to White Protestants than to literally everyone else. Ray Allen Billington’s exhaustive study, The Protestant Crusade, proves this beyond all shadow of a doubt. And I cite him on the fact precisely because he is so hostile to the colonial and founding Protestant worldview. He is a hostile, albeit expert, witness, and as such doubly useful.

As Billington relays it, the American colonists “administer[ed] oaths of allegiance which specifically denounced the pope and fast days where prayers were offered ‘that the Protestant interest might be advanced in our English nation.'” Moreover they accepted King James II’s proclamation of religious liberty only upon the inclusion of an antipapal section of the charter of 1691 which granted “Liberty of Conscience in the worship of God to all Christians [except papists].” No other worldviews were even on the table. Except perhaps Wiccan and Indian magics, which were prosecuted as capital offenses.

As one popular colonial pamphlet summarized the American understanding of religious liberty:

If Gallic Papists have a right

To worship their own way

Then farewell to the Liberties,

Of poor America.

This is the whole thesis of Billington’s book — proving that the American conception of freedom of religion meant freedom for White Protestants exclusively to practice our faith unencumbered by the popes and their puppet kings, and secure against the aggressions of all other worldviews. And it is not his thesis alone, but the same assumed by everyone — especially White Christians — up until very recent years. This is the backdrop by which we understand the First Amendment’s assurance of freedom of religion.

Even the Supreme Court has confirmed this understanding of the First Amendment:

The real object of the [First] amendment was not to countenance, much less to advance, Mahometanism, or Judaism, or infidelity, by prostrating Christianity, but to exclude all rivalry among Christian sects, and to prevent any national ecclesiastical establishment which should give to a hierarchy the exclusive patronage of the national government.

~Joseph Story, Justice, Supreme Court of the United States from 1811 to 1845

This understanding, which was universal in the colonial and founding eras, informing the language of the framers of the Constitution themselves, is the one view precisely rejected now under the modern assumption of pluralism. Thus outlawing the Christian understanding of religious liberty in a country founded expressly upon that very principle.

Free Speech

From the beginning in this country, free speech was understood as predicated on the Reformation doctrine of toleration, which, in order to be consistent with itself, precludes all speech that contradicts or undermines the orthodox Protestant faith. For our fathers knew any and all worldviews apart from orthodox Protestantism will necessarily undermine and seek to abolish our freedom of religion.

It was the fruit of the Reformation. . . . Thus the philosophical base of the First Amendment was that of denominational pluralism — a healthy coexistence between the various Christian denominations. Such practical denominational pluralism is not to be confused with the modern concept of pluralism, which commands complete acceptance of all views, even secular humanism.

Our fathers took Christ’s words to heart: “He who is not with Me is against Me” (Matt. 12:30). Inside the umbrella of orthodoxy, all Christian creeds should have toleration, but non-Christians simply cannot tolerate genuine Christianity, and thus, the term ‘religious liberty’ was not conceived as extending to them. In fact, understood from the vantage of Christianity, religious liberty was the domain of those “free in Christ,” none other. Because all others were in bondage to sin. This is core Christian doctrine, and likewise the core belief of colonial America. This is why and how the same men who gave us the Bill of Rights also ratified anti-blasphemy laws in the various states as consistent with the First Amendment, and on occasion, even prosecuted blasphemers under the same; blasphemers being any who spoke contrary to orthodox Christianity. No one at that time, not even the signatories to the Constitution, believed blasphemy to be protected speech, as such a view would necessarily negate the foundational faith of the nation. In early America, federal judges treated any attack on the name of Christ as an attack on the central basis and character of our whole legal system and nation. Blasphemy was regarded rightly, therefore, as a type of treason.

This makes the modern concept of pluralism, i.e., multiculturalism, not only irreconcilable with the First Amendment, but a direct repudiation of it. Multiculturalism violates the First Amendment directly by demanding it to mean the opposite of what it actually meant.

This is all the more apparent for the fact that as multiculturalism has risen, those anti-blasphemy codes enacted and upheld by the framers are suddenly deemed “unconstitutional” by Jewish and other humanist judges who endemically resent the founding faith under which the Constitution was written.

Of course, this begs the question of how pagans ever attained the gavel in the first place. Unfortunately, the scope of this piece does not permit the treatment which that question deserves. So we reserve it for another time.

But make no mistake; they have not discontinued the concept of anti-blasphemy codes. They have merely created new ones to replace the old, these, after the new humanist order — codes against “hate speech” wherein they ostensibly outlaw telling obvious truths with respect to gender, race, nation, and many other categories besides, according to the very Christian worldview that the old anti-blasphemy codes were drafted to protect. Even defending the true purpose and intent of the First Amendment itself is deemed ‘hate speech,’ and therefore not protected under the First Amendment. Like Alice, the American Christian is through the looking glass.

Yes, if there’s one thing our modern Diversity cannot abide, it’s free speech after the American tradition. Blacks demand all sorts of penalties for any White who dares utter the Latin word for Black. And under the circumstance of their intimidation, our society is more or less resolved now to the view that any Whites whom Blacks dislike enough to beat, rape, or murder deserve whatever they get for having offended the gods of modern humanism.

If granted, the modern multicultural interpretation of the First Amendment actually outlaws Christianity uniquely. So either it means what its historical and worldview context dictates — Protestant hegemony and Christian exclusivity — or it means Christianity is outlawed. An interpretation which, in light of the time and place of its drafting, would be preposterous. There is no middle ground on the matter: in order for it to even be coherent, we must understand the First Amendment as a safeguard of Christian hegemony. The alternative is simply gibberish.

For if we took it as moderns insist, as if predicated on modern multicult pluralism and tolerance, the fact is that everyone is intolerant. To be for anything implies an inverse objection to something else. Even to espouse ‘tolerance’ is to be intolerant of those whom you deem intolerant. But that is then to say, the humanist ethic of tolerance is simply self-refuting. This theory of the First Amendment is simply incoherent.

The Right to Bear Arms

If there is one social vector by which we might guess a person’s sentiment on the Second Amendment, it would be race. Whites far and away favor the right of gun ownership more than non-Whites. This in itself bespeaks the perspectival divide, but it does not end there.

It has become a mainstay argument of the National Rifle Association, and like rightward organizations, that in areas where restrictions on gun ownership are loosened, crime tends to drop: a thesis summed up pithily in John Lott’s More Guns, Less Crime.

This argument is patently true. Well, at least in rural and upscale suburban areas. Which is to say, conservative areas. Which is also to say, White areas. White men with unhampered access to weapons do indeed make the world safer. In my own town there are guns in every home, yet so little crime, not to mention violence, as to need no police force at all. We get by with one part-time sheriff’s deputy allotted to cover a town of over ten thousand people. And he still has nothing to do.

But the argument that more guns equal less crime falls apart entirely with respect to minority-dominant areas. Wherever Blacks are all armed, you find nothing like the polite society engendered by arms among Whites, but rather open and endless warfare in the streets. That is their norm with or without access to guns.

However, even if non-Whites tend to be anti-gun in the abstract, and after having voted to disarm their own communities, they keep personal arsenals anyway. In a sense, you can understand this strategy — if your neighbors are all hostile, vote to disarm them, but secretly maintain arms yourself. But it never really works to pacify their neighborhoods either way, neither the legislation banning guns, nor the fact that most of them ignore those codes anyway. But it remains the case that we have no surer means to rightly discern areas of gun violence than to note the ethnic makeup of an area. If it’s Black or Brown, gun violence, along with all other categories of violence, will be much elevated over that of White areas. If guns in White hands suppress crime, guns in Brown hands result in stronger, more aggressive cartels, gangs, and individual criminals alike. Guns in White hands may produce Mayberry, but guns in Black hands result in Chicago, Detroit, and Zimbabwe — war zones like something seen only in films about post-apocalyptic dystopias.

If you think about it, the non-White monolith opinion in favor of banning guns is ultimately couched in their distrust of their co-ethnics. Blacks don’t trust other Blacks to have guns. Because they know how they are. And insisting their fellow Blacks be disarmed, they feel instinctively compelled to see Whites disarmed too, if for no other reason, so as not to empower Whites in any way or tacitly confirm any superiority in White society.

Thus, non-Whites repudiate our God-given right to bear arms: a Christian liberty cherished as essential by our folk for more than a millennium.

But in so doing, even their position on the matter grants the legitimacy of our Founders’ having regarded the right of arms in our land to apply to Whites exclusively. Our fathers wisely outlawed not only arms for Indians and Blacks, but also the sale of those armaments to them by White men. For Whites to sell guns to Indians or Blacks was reckoned treason, not entirely unlike running guns to ISIS today. Actually, guns in the hands of Blacks and Mexicans in America prove far more injurious than like arms shipped to Arabs on the other side of the world. So phrased as an a fortiori argument, if arming Moslems afar is bad, how much worse, then, is arming the eternally aggrieved aliens in our midst?

Either way you slice it, though, the right of efficient self-defense in the form of arms cannot persist under the circumstance of legal equality with diversity. Under the assumption of the so-called “propositional nation,” our Second Amendment will continue to be suppressed, and ever the more as demographics trend non-White.

Rights of Property and Association



These two are conceptually entwined in the Third, Fourth, and Fifth Amendments, as well as in the Civil Rights legislation that abrogated them. For the integration policies of FedGov deprived Americans of these God-given rights by compelling us, against our overall better judgement, to admit Blacks entry to our properties, businesses, and neighborhoods against our wills and the most basic prerogatives of ownership and self-preservation.

So compelled under threat of fines, jail, and murder therein, to serve Blacks at large against our own wishes and interests, they literally, and by definition, enslaved us to hostile aliens. Integration put a veritable whip in the African’s hand to lord over the White man. And this they have wielded most mercilessly ever since, every Black the presumed master of every White. Abolition didn’t end the plantation system, but merely expanded it to encompass the whole populace and socially promoted the Black over his old master in the racial hierarchy; but the Leviathan state rules all with a heavier hand than was known to any antebellum cotton field. This besieged and terrorized circumstance for our people they have the temerity to call equality.

This spurious notion of racial equality, and propositional nationhood with it, having been introduced by the ilicit Fourteenth Amendment that alchemically declared Africans to be Americans, was a resolve to suppress the White man’s God-given rights in deference to African “Civil Rights.” Where the White man’s God-given rights were derived organically from 1,700 years of biblical law applied, the equivalent for Blacks could not be drawn directly from that same conduit of exposition. Because the common application of biblical law amongst the people had ever taken place in the context of the kindred folk of Europe, and was understood as the basis for our own existence, securing nationalism, tribalism, and familism; because there was no root below from which to derive American rights for Blacks, they were imposed from above by fiat statecraft. No organic means to do so existed within Christian Anglo-Saxon jurisprudence. Americans counted ourselves one of the kindred Japhethite nations covenanted to God at the foot of Mt. Calvary no less than the Israelites had been at Mt. Zion. Africans had no place in that equation except as ambassadors, sojourners, or servants. So the revolutionary character of creating new rights for alien peoples found the state drawing upon an alternate source, the spirit of pre-Christian Roman law, the integrationist politic of Babel. If no equal rights could be found for the African in the state under God, they would be conjured rather from the god-state. Standing afar and bewildered, the American church knew this to be a turn from the bottom-up Christian Common Law of our fathers to the imperial top-down fantasy of heathen law. Civil Rights legislation had about it all the semblance of witchcraft rather than any Christian metaphysic.

Conclusion



Much more could be said of these things, and has. But what needs to be addressed yet is the fact that in this state alchemy presuming to apply American rights to all these disparate elements and transform them thereby, we meet the pitiless inevitability of natural consequences: the presence of non-Whites under the circumstance of declared equality with Americans did not elevate them into our civilization, but denatured our law itself, and renders all American rights inert. For the perspectival relation of non-Whites to our civilization creates a crisis of definition within said rights themselves.

That is, non-Whites and practitioners of all the sundry cults generally interpret our rights 180 degrees differently from that of White Christians, the stock for whom this land was exclusively settled.

Be it our freedom of religion, or speech (constrained by Christian anti-blasphemy codes), our right to arms, property, and association, or any other essential God-given American right, the multicult inverts them all. Thus enslaving our folk and outlawing the very faith that founded our republic.

Elwood Fisher summed the matter in his eulogy for the American nation: “Here lies a people who lost their own liberty in trying to give freedom to the Negro.” Abolition and ‘Civil Rights’ in elevating the Black did not raise him into liberty and freedom, but rather, redefined liberty and freedom. And the new multicult conception thereof is really but the revival and reassertion of all the eldest and darkest tyrannies which God forewarned in Deuteronomy 28 and Leviticus 26 to be the inevitable recompense to the covenant nation that might rebel against Him.

The fact that my farmer friend has to laboriously explain to his fellows the fact that the civilization built by our White Christian forbears cannot be sustained by the multicult horde, and that they think him mad for it, is itself proof of the apostasy that has brought chaos upon us. When WASPS insist that Aztec devotees of Santería are their equals and partakers in the same birthright as themselves, they have turned aside to other gods; and blessing their chains, sacrifice their own children upon strange altars.

In the midst of all the handwringing by liberal Whites, Blacks are openly declaring their intent and plotting the mass murder of Whites in the stark light of day. Blacks enjoy a near total consensus on the matter.

And, as established, Jews like Sanders, along with the practitioners of every other religion, see religious pluralism as encompassing all non-Christian systems, but uniquely outlawing orthodox Christianity.

Your charge in the midst of all this, dear reader, is to do as the good farmer has: light lamps of truth to stay the darkness. As St. Paul said with respect to the Cretans, we must “rebuke them sharply that they may be made sound in the faith” (Titus 1:13), and not despair. Our King prepares a table of feasting for us in the midst of our enemies, and the good news is that lies are temporary and the truth is eternal. It may not happen tomorrow, or the next day, or next year, but truth will prevail. In spite of present appearances, we win in the end.