Joseph Sobran defined Alienism as “a prejudice in favor of the alien, the marginal, the dispossessed, the eccentric, reaching an extreme in the attempt to ‘build a new society’ by destroying the basic institutions of the native. The most terrible fulfillment of this principle is Communism.” In Christianity, our responsibility to others is governed by relationship, such that we have a greater responsibility to our own family, race, town, state, region, and country, than we do to “the other”. Christians should favor the native and the normal over the alien and the novel. Nevertheless, it is undeniable that a great many of my fellow Christians today have given themselves over to strange affections of one variety or another. With that introduction, and with apologies to Jeff Foxworthy, I give you:
Author Archives: mhenry
Theologian Geerhardus Vos: Nationalism Biblical, NWO Satanic
“Nationalism, within proper limits, has the divine sanction; an imperialism that would, in the interest of one people, obliterate all lines of distinction is everywhere condemned as contrary to the divine will. Later prophecy raises its voice against the attempt at world-power, and that not only, as is sometimes assumed, because it threatens Israel, but for the far more principal reason, that the whole idea is pagan and immoral.
Now it is through maintaining the national diversities, as these express themselves in the difference of language, and are in turn upheld by this difference, that God prevents realization of the attempted scheme… [In this] was a positive intent that concerned the natural life of humanity. Under the providence of God each race or nation has a positive purpose to serve, fulfillment of which depends on relative seclusion from others.” ~ Geerhardus Vos in Biblical Theology
Unity of the Godhead When Man is Your God
“[H]umanity is the true god of the Enlightenment and of French Revolutionary thought. In all religious faiths, one of the inevitable requirements of logical thought asserts itself in a demand for the unity of the godhead. Hence, since humanity is god, there can be no division in this godhead, humanity. Mankind must therefore be forced to unite. Since Enlightenment philosophy is monistic, this means an intolerance of differences as unessential. National and racial differences, instead of being God-given and possessing richness and dignity to be respected, are to be obliterated. The goal is not communion but uniformity. Again, since humanity is god, the killing of any man either for crimes or in warfare is an offense. (The only permissible killing is possibly George Bernard Shaw’s execution ‘in a kindly manner’ of the enemies of socialism.) Humanistic pacifism is the result, and a pro-one-World, United Nations, peace-at-any-price faith. The godhead must be united. This faith finds expression in the U. S. Department of State Publication 7277, ‘Freedom From War,’ September, 1961. This faith was expressed in the midst of war by Churchill and F. D. Roosevelt in Point 8 of the Atlantic Charter, and was ascribed to their governments: ‘They believe all the nations of the world, for realistic as well as spiritual reasons, must come to the abandonment of the use of force.’ But Scripture does not consider the legitimate use of force as an evil but rather as a necessity and a good to be used to prevent the rise and triumph of evil. Roosevelt’s faith required messianic intervention with force and at the same time a condemnation of all force! Because of this coincidence of messianic interventionism and pacifism, this philosophy has created war even where men have talked most about world peace. The very idea of a United Nations requires war, in that it insists on irreconcilable and contradictory things. First, it insists on uniting a world and leveling all differences. Anyone with a sense of integrity must inevitably resist this leveling. Second, it seeks to create a super-state which must increasingly coerce every state, civil government, and person into line with its dream of messianic power. Third, it seeks to arrest history and freeze it into a particular mold in terms of Enlightenment thought. Inevitably, this faith is anti-Christian, and a conflict with Christianity is requisite to its being.” ~ R. J. Rushdoony in This Independent Republic
Kevin Swanson Takes Courageous Stand Against Terran-Caitian Miscegenation
White auto-genocide advocate Pastor Kevin Swanson recently changed course and has now taken a courageous stand against miscegenation, at least of the Terran-Caitian variety. Early last month, Swanson and Dave Buehner discussed a scene in Star Trek Into Darkness on their show, Generations Radio:
Swanson: Do I really want to take my kids to watch a movie that implicates the good guy in the film as mating with the wrong species – but not just one, but two?
Buehner: Well, you know I could understand that Christians would get upset if it was a male of a different species. No actually, I’m not sure that the bestiality and the homosexuality are really all that different.
World Missions: You’re Doing it Wrong
“[M]issionary programs have become downright wicked. The purpose of a missionary program is to preach the gospel. What have we made it? Well, we made it extensively, everything else under the sun. We have, among other things, established an education program. Now, this in itself has done incredible damage. It is one thing for Christians in a missionary field to set up their own schools as they become Christians and as they grow, and to train their won, it is another thing for us to go in there and establish schools according to our pattern. Because, what do we do the moment we create such schools? Well, when we go say into the heart of Africa or Asia and establish a mission school, immediately what we are establishing in that school is an American standard of life and an American standard of education which has no relevancy to the life in their village. And when they go back they are very unhappy. And we take the best of these students and we bring them to this country to colleges and universities, and when they go back it is impossible for them to live among their own people, and we support them, because it is impossible for them to get back to the same standard of living. And what do they become, most of them? Leaders of revolution. They are the communist leaders almost uniformly.
The State Wants the Church to Bless its Acts and Define its Wars as Just
“Before Marxists attained power in Russia and China, the proposition was widely believed, government likes religion. Wanting honesty and service, it hopes that religion helps to make honest men who serve. But government is ever aware that religion is unpredictable and that prophets are hard to control. To rule men needs compromise. In face of the sacred is always an unbendable will. Government likes religion to bless its acts, crown its dictators, sanction its laws, define its wars as just, be decorous master of national ceremonies. And since on grounds of religion religious men may criticize acts or laws or wars or modes of waging war, government prefers quietness and contemplation to excess of zeal. Though religion is important to government, it does not value excess of religion. It is happy with general morality, reasonable and moderate, but is uncomfortable with too much enthusiasm.” ~ Owen Chadwick in The Secularization of the European Mind in the Nineteenth Century
Facial Justice
“[Thomas More’s Utopia] was followed for the next few centuries by other utopian socialist writers, who refined More’s basic outline in terms of a more consistent, thoroughly paganized, socialist vision. In general, no practical steps were suggested for alleviating the condition of the poor; the image of the suffering poor was simply dredged up in order to incite hatred and envy against the rich. The philosophers were explicit in their insistence upon complete standardization: increasingly, equality meant identity. They dreamed of the “inevitable” approach of the socialist ideal, of total equality under a total State, when language would become static and unchanging, reading (and eventually thinking) would atrophy, all days would be alike, and even facial appearances would be identical.” ~ David Chilton in Igor Shafarevich’s The Socialist Phenomenon
Family as the Pattern for Nations
“The tribes [of Israel] existed by circumstances of birth before circumcision was reinstituted by Moses and their structure was not altered by the rite. As with all other nations, membership was normally by birth: the structure was given in the created order of the family, and that in turn was the pattern for the structure of the nation.
The human rights notion of the human race as essentially formed by the will of man entering into social contract is notoriously scandalized by the existence of races, peoples, nations, tribes and languages. Even to insist that these groups do exist is to risk the derisive epithet of ‘racist.’ But to deny that they not only exist but that they are unalterable and determinative of human order is to deserve to be called a fool and a liar. National and language groupings have prevailed in the United States over as many as seven or eight generations of the imaginary ‘melting pot,’ and show no signs of dissolving even though, for most, English has become the mother tongue. Even the major church divisions retain the national divisions brought over from Europe and Britain: the various Lutheran bodies, Dutch and German Reformed, Presbyterian (Scottish), Anglican or English, as well as Irish Catholic as distinct from Italian, Polish or Spanish. Jews, to be sure, are fiercely Jewish, despite the abrasions between the Ashkenazies, the Sephardim and those from Central Europe and Russia. Nobody has yet integrated the Negro race, changed their color or destroyed their elusive community structure.
Trying to be God Through False Charity
“[G]odly man must recognize that he has the obligation to be without pity and without charity in dealing with some, that this attitude, however harsh it may seem in terms of modern sentimentality, constitutes moral strength and spiritual integrity. He must recognize that he cannot rob himself or others in order to feed the undeserving of the world, or the improvident who demand as their right a portion of our wealth. … [T]rue stewardship means a humility whereby man avoids a fundamental sin common to false charity, that of trying to be God. In false charity the whole world is re-ordered and the nature of reality amended by the rebellious man, a would-be god whose societal forms and life constitute an act of warfare against God and His Word. False charity is therefore a war against reality, and every war against reality is an insanity foreordained to destruction.” ~ R.J. Rushdoony in Politics of Guilt and Pity