Wednesday, January 2, 2008
AOL POLL: "Was Abe Lincoln wrong to fight the Civil War?"
AOL POLL: "Was Abe Lincoln wrong to fight the Civil War?"
Greetings from the CofCC.org Website Staff.
A new poll by AOL.com asks "Was Abe Lincoln wrong to fight the Civil War." The question is loaded. It should read, "was Abe Lincoln wrong to launch a war against the southern states?"
The poll is part of an effort to demonize Ron Paul for saying (over six months ago) on an HBO show that Lincoln was not justified in launching his war, and that freeing the slaves did not require that a war be fought.
So far nearly 60,000 people have participated in the AOL poll, and 28% said that yes Lincoln was was wrong. Another 9% put unsure. Despite 150 years of anti-South propaganda, it seems that a significant segment of the US population is not convinced that Lincoln was right. Among six Southern states, the 43% or more voted yes. In another seven states (3 southern and 4 western) 34% or more said Lincoln was not justified.
Please participate in this poll. Even if you don't care for Ron Paul, your participation in this poll will be a slap in the face of the left-wing editorial staff at AOL.com and be encouraging for all who support Southern Heritage. Vote "Yes" in the poll.
Visit: http://news.aol.com/political-machine/2007/12/26/hot-seat-lincoln-wrong-to-fight-civil-war/
AOL Poll
Thank You, from the CofCC.org Website Staff.
http://www.cofcc.org
Greetings from the CofCC.org Website Staff.
A new poll by AOL.com asks "Was Abe Lincoln wrong to fight the Civil War." The question is loaded. It should read, "was Abe Lincoln wrong to launch a war against the southern states?"
The poll is part of an effort to demonize Ron Paul for saying (over six months ago) on an HBO show that Lincoln was not justified in launching his war, and that freeing the slaves did not require that a war be fought.
So far nearly 60,000 people have participated in the AOL poll, and 28% said that yes Lincoln was was wrong. Another 9% put unsure. Despite 150 years of anti-South propaganda, it seems that a significant segment of the US population is not convinced that Lincoln was right. Among six Southern states, the 43% or more voted yes. In another seven states (3 southern and 4 western) 34% or more said Lincoln was not justified.
Please participate in this poll. Even if you don't care for Ron Paul, your participation in this poll will be a slap in the face of the left-wing editorial staff at AOL.com and be encouraging for all who support Southern Heritage. Vote "Yes" in the poll.
Visit: http://news.aol.com/political-machine/2007/12/26/hot-seat-lincoln-wrong-to-fight-civil-war/
AOL Poll
Thank You, from the CofCC.org Website Staff.
http://www.cofcc.org
Monday, December 31, 2007
Saturday, September 8, 2007
The Stranger
A few months before I was born, my dad met a stranger who was new to our small Tennessee town. From the beginning, Dad was fascinated with this enchanting newcomer, and soon invited him to live with our family.
The stranger was quickly accepted and was around to welcome me into the world a few months later. As I grew up I never questioned his place in our family. In my young mind, each member had a special niche.
My brother, Bill, five years my senior, was my example. Fran, my younger sister, gave me an opportunity to play 'big brother' and develop the art of teasing. My parents were complementary instructors -- Mom taught me to love the Word of God, and Dad taught me to obey it.
But, the stranger was our storyteller. He could weave the most fascinating tales. Adventures, mysteries and comedies were daily conversations. He could hold our whole family spell-bound for hours each evening. If I wanted to know about politics, history, or science, he knew it all. He knew about the past, understood the present, and seemingly could predict the future. The pictures he could draw were so lifelike that I would often laugh or cry.
He was like a friend to the whole family. He took Dad, Bill and me to our first major league baseball game. He was always encouraging us to see the movies and he even made arrangements to introduce us to several movie stars. My brother and I were deeply impressed by John Wayne in
particular.
The stranger was an incessant talker. Dad didn't seem to mind -- but sometimes Mom would quietly get up -- while the rest of us were enthralled with one of his stories of faraway places -- go to her room, read her Bible and pray. I wonder now if she ever prayed that the stranger would leave.
You see, my dad ruled our household with certain moral convictions. But, this stranger never felt obligation to honor them. Profanity, for example, was not allowed in our house -- not from us, from our friends, or adults. Our longtime visitor, however, used occasional four-letter words that burned my ears and made Dad squirm. To my knowledge the stranger was never confronted.
My dad was a teetotaler who didn't permit alcohol in his home - not even for cooking. But the stranger felt like we needed exposure and enlightened us to other ways of life. He offered us beer and other alcoholic beverages often. He made cigarettes look tasty, cigars manly, and pipes distinguished. He talked freely (probably too much too freely) about sex. His comments were sometimes blatant, sometimes suggestive, and generally embarrassing. I know now that my early concepts of the man-woman relationship were influenced by the stranger.
As I look back, I believe it was the grace of God that the stranger did not influence us more. Time after time he opposed the values of my parents. Yet he was seldom rebuked and never asked to leave.
More than 30 years have passed since the stranger moved in with the young family on Morningside Drive. He is not nearly so intriguing to my Dad as he was in those early years.
But, if you were to walk into my parents' den today, you would still see him sitting over in a corner, waiting for someone to listen to him talk and look at his pictures.
His name?
We always just called him T.V
-Anon.
The stranger was quickly accepted and was around to welcome me into the world a few months later. As I grew up I never questioned his place in our family. In my young mind, each member had a special niche.
My brother, Bill, five years my senior, was my example. Fran, my younger sister, gave me an opportunity to play 'big brother' and develop the art of teasing. My parents were complementary instructors -- Mom taught me to love the Word of God, and Dad taught me to obey it.
But, the stranger was our storyteller. He could weave the most fascinating tales. Adventures, mysteries and comedies were daily conversations. He could hold our whole family spell-bound for hours each evening. If I wanted to know about politics, history, or science, he knew it all. He knew about the past, understood the present, and seemingly could predict the future. The pictures he could draw were so lifelike that I would often laugh or cry.
He was like a friend to the whole family. He took Dad, Bill and me to our first major league baseball game. He was always encouraging us to see the movies and he even made arrangements to introduce us to several movie stars. My brother and I were deeply impressed by John Wayne in
particular.
The stranger was an incessant talker. Dad didn't seem to mind -- but sometimes Mom would quietly get up -- while the rest of us were enthralled with one of his stories of faraway places -- go to her room, read her Bible and pray. I wonder now if she ever prayed that the stranger would leave.
You see, my dad ruled our household with certain moral convictions. But, this stranger never felt obligation to honor them. Profanity, for example, was not allowed in our house -- not from us, from our friends, or adults. Our longtime visitor, however, used occasional four-letter words that burned my ears and made Dad squirm. To my knowledge the stranger was never confronted.
My dad was a teetotaler who didn't permit alcohol in his home - not even for cooking. But the stranger felt like we needed exposure and enlightened us to other ways of life. He offered us beer and other alcoholic beverages often. He made cigarettes look tasty, cigars manly, and pipes distinguished. He talked freely (probably too much too freely) about sex. His comments were sometimes blatant, sometimes suggestive, and generally embarrassing. I know now that my early concepts of the man-woman relationship were influenced by the stranger.
As I look back, I believe it was the grace of God that the stranger did not influence us more. Time after time he opposed the values of my parents. Yet he was seldom rebuked and never asked to leave.
More than 30 years have passed since the stranger moved in with the young family on Morningside Drive. He is not nearly so intriguing to my Dad as he was in those early years.
But, if you were to walk into my parents' den today, you would still see him sitting over in a corner, waiting for someone to listen to him talk and look at his pictures.
His name?
We always just called him T.V
-Anon.
Sunday, September 2, 2007
The Turtle & The Scorpion
A turtle was preparing to cross a stream, when a scorpion nearby asked him for a ride across the water, as he couldn't swim. The turtle refused, saying the scorpion would sting him. The scorpion pointed out that that would be senseless, since it would kill him also. The turtle, seeing the sense of this, agreed to help him across the stream. Halfway across, the scorpion stung him. The turtle cried out "But WHY! You have killed us both!" The scorpion replied "Because it is my nature.
Friday, August 24, 2007
Tuesday, August 7, 2007
Racial Socialism
Racial Socialism From Creator book: Nature's Eternal Religion; an online article at Overthrow.com |
Saturday, August 4, 2007
The Illustrated Exodus
Original Historical Documents
The Illustrated Exodus
They have been looking at the wrong places.
The Illustrated Exodus
They have been looking at the wrong places.
Chronologically Helpful Parallels between the Hyksos and the Amalekites
The Rise and Fall of 18th Dynasty Egypt
With the aid of Saul and later David, the Egyptian Ahmose battled the Hyksos/Amalekites.
The Rise and Fall of 18th Dynasty Egypt
With the aid of Saul and later David, the Egyptian Ahmose battled the Hyksos/Amalekites.
Saturday, June 30, 2007
THE LAW by Frederick Bastiat
What follows is a few excerpts from this classic treatise which is the often praised [usually by conservatives, populists and libertarians] but seldom practiced defense of liberty. Then follows my own comments:
Begin Quote:
What follows is a few excerpts from this classic treatise which is the often praised [usually by conservatives, populists and libertarians] but seldom practiced defense of liberty. Then follows my own comments:
Begin Quote:
The Proper Function of the Law
And, in all sincerity, can anything more than the absence of plunder be required of the law? Can the law -- which necessarily requires the use of force -- rationally be used for anything except protecting the rights of everyone? I defy anyone to extend it beyond this purpose without perverting it and, consequently, turning might against right.This is the most fatal and most illogical social perversion that can possibly be imagined. It must be admitted that the true solution -- so long searched for in the area of social relationships -- is contained in these simple words: Law is organized justice.
Now this must be said: When justice is organized by law -- that is, by force -- this excludes the idea of using law (force) to organize any human activity whatever, whether it be labor, charity, agriculture, commerce, industry, education, art, or religion. The organizing by law of any one of these would inevitably destroy the essential organization -- justice. For truly, how can we imagine force being used against the liberty of citizens without it also being used against justice, and thus acting against its proper purpose?
The Seductive Lure of Socialism
Here I encounter the most popular fallacy of our times. It is not considered sufficient that the law should be just; it must be philanthropic. Nor is it sufficient that the law should guarantee to every citizen the free and inoffensive use of his faculties for physical, intellectual, and moral self-improvement. Instead, it is demanded that the law should directly extend welfare, education, and morality throughout the nation.
This is the seductive lure of socialism. And I repeat again: These two uses of the law are in direct contradiction to each other. We must choose between them. A citizen cannot at the same time be free and not free.
Enforced Fraternity Destroys Liberty
Mr. de Lamartine once wrote to me thusly: "Your doctrine is only the half of my
program. You have stopped at liberty; I go on to fraternity." I answered him: "The second half of your program will destroy the first."
In fact, it is impossible for me to separate the word fraternity from the word voluntary. I cannot possibly understand how fraternity can be legally enforced without liberty being legally destroyed, and thus justice being legally trampled underfoot.Legal plunder has two roots: One of them, as I have said before, is in human greed; the other is in false philanthropy.
At this point, I think that I should explain exactly what I mean by the word plunder.*
*Translator's note: The French word used by Mr. Bastiat is spoliation.
Plunder Violates Ownership
I do not, as is often done, use the word in any vague, uncertain, approximate, or metaphorical sense. I use it in its scientific acceptance -- as expressing the idea opposite to that of property [wages, land, money, or whatever]. When a portion of wealth is transferred from the person who owns it -- without his consent and without compensation, and whether by force or by fraud -- to anyone who does not own it, then I say that property is violated; that an act of plunder is committed.
I say that this act is exactly what the law is supposed to suppress, always and everywhere. When the law itself commits this act that it is supposed to suppress, I say that plunder is still committed, and I add that from the point of view of society and welfare, this aggression against rights is even worse. In this case of legal plunder, however, the person who receives the benefits is not responsible for the act of plundering. The responsibility for this legal plunder rests with the law, the legislator, and society itself.
Therein lies the political danger.
End Quote.
My Comments:
THE PROPER FUNCTION OF THE LAW FOR OUR TIME
I agree with Mr. Bastiat's definition of the proper function of the law. I do however disagree with Mr. Bastiat's view that laws concerning justice [protection of the innocent from plunder] in the realms of any and all human activities must necessarily translate to legalized plunder. My view of ethical socialism is not about the enforcement of a certain way or organization onto these areas of life as Jewish socialism is but rather is merely an extension of the very same principle of organized justice of which Mr. Bastiat writes. Extended beyond the mere protection of individual rights to include group rights. Especially those rights or freedoms a people must have in order to pursue a path or organize their own lives in such a way as to ensure the long term survival and advancement of their extended racial family.
THE SEDUCTIVE LURE OF JEWISH SOCIALISM
On the seductive lure of socialism of which Mr. Bastiat speaks again I must make clear the distinction between Jewish socialism [whether in the form of Marxism, Communism, or International Usury/Monopoly Capitalism] and the true ethical socialism I advocate. The kind of socialism he fears is the kind that is hard coded into law and thus made into a tyranny over men. That isn't at all what I mean by socialism. In a sense I am not even referring to any type of government or economic system but rather of a certain kind of underlying value system which ought to be promoted by every aspect of a healthy people's culture, media and information outlets, enterainment industries, schools, churches and homes. I agree with Bastiat's warnings of the seductive lure of Jewish socialism in all of its deceptive forms.
Today the law protects the rights of corporate monopolies before it protects the rights of individuals and special interest groups or protected classes [such as blacks or Jews] enjoy a monopoly on legal protections which are denied to only one group: Whites. Whites by rights should be legally protected from all forms of genocide no matter how seemingly slow and soft. Any threat to our existence as a race, nation, culture and civilization ought to be protected above all else. If the White race goes so does everything we hold sacred - including the freedoms Bastiat so passionately defended.
ENFORCED INTERRACIAL-FRATERNITY DESTROYS LIBERTY
While I understand Mr. Bastiat's point about enforced vs. voluntary fraternity we must understand the different times and circumstances in which he lived and wrote. He lived through the turbulent years leading up to the french revolution and witnessed it's aftermath. For him, the thought of a multicultural racially integrated society never entered his mind.
His concern was intra-racial [within the White race] social interaction rather than inter-racial. I have no doubt in my mind that he would make an exception to his rule against forcing any kind of fraternity by rule of law in the case of a nation besieged by endless waves of unassimilable immigration compounded by a culture that promotes the forced integration of the races. He would argue just as passionately against forced integration and not have to change a thing in his defense of liberty vs. fraternity while at the same time I know he would make the necessary exception to his rule and argue the need to make genocide through immigration, multiculturalism, integration and miscegenation illegal.
Similar to how the writings of early American forefathers have been taken out of context and re-interpreted according to politically correct thinking [such as the declaration that 'all men are created equal'] I believe Mr. Bastiat had no other society in mind when he warned of the dangers of enforced fraternity than a homogenous mono-racial one in which inter-racial fraternity was not even an option.
It is painfully obvious to modern day White Americans that it is forced racial integration that threatens our liberties and White rights today even while we enjoy all the freedom of voluntary association advocated by Bastiat [unless you are specifically assembling for the promotion of White interests at which point you are then called evil racist haters who do not deserve the same rights as other fraternities].
What we need now more than ever is lawful protection of our race and homelands from intrusion and integration and protection of our right to voluntarily assemble and organize and fraternize under the banner of mutual racial brotherly love - racial brother and sisterhood.
IF LEGALIZED PLUNDER IS BAD CORPORATE MONOPOLY IS WORSE!
As for legal plunder I agree but again there is that matter of historical differences between his time and ours. Bastiat had no knowledge of a world dominated and monopolized by global international corporations operating safely under the legal protection of the very same principles of law and capitalism which Bastiat defended so passionately. He would be absolutely horrified to see the abuses now perpetuated in his name today! Surely he would demand some kind of legal limit to corporate power not mention other monopolies such as the ownership and control of the mass media just as he demanded there be limits to federal or government power. Apparently the only sort of tyranny Bastiat imagined and feared was that of the corruption and abuse of governmental powers. He did not forsee the many other forms of tryanny we now endure today.
Saturday, April 28, 2007
Monday, April 9, 2007
Jan.15th = Channon Christian & Christopher Newsom day!
Originally Posted by Dirk Lowpad 
The brutal murders of Channon and Christopher have been ignored by the jewish media, but they will not be ignored by us.
We have had enough of the savagery and we have had enough of the media Black outs that are sending a message that the jewish controlled media condones the brutal slaughter of Whites in America as they do in South Africa.
From this day forward, January 15th will no longer be called Martin Luther King day, it will be called Channon Christian & Christopher Newsom day.
We will remember these two young people who's brutal murders were ignored to spare the feelings of our nations woeful negros who at the time were agonising over the word "nigger."
We have had enough of the savagery and we have had enough of the media Black outs that are sending a message that the jewish controlled media condones the brutal slaughter of Whites in America as they do in South Africa.
From this day forward, January 15th will no longer be called Martin Luther King day, it will be called Channon Christian & Christopher Newsom day.
We will remember these two young people who's brutal murders were ignored to spare the feelings of our nations woeful negros who at the time were agonising over the word "nigger."
Tuesday, March 27, 2007
Hush Crime Rally - 2007
(Rally date to be announced by VNN on 4/1/07)
START TODAY! GET THE WORD OUT! “HUSH CRIME RALLY” --- > Knoxville, Tennessee . . . in the planning stages ---- > NOW!!!
This rally began to come to light after the brutal and savage carjacking, kidnapping, rape, sodomy and murder of a young White couple accosted by black savages while on a date. The national jewish owned networks have refused to report on this vicious and sadistic black attack. The victims; “Christopher Newsom” and "Channon Christian” will be honored and remembered in a rally scheduled for late spring/early summer. Please plan to attend.
For more information, see the links below. Also note: VNN, is organizing the rally. Keep up to date by browsing that site. VNN has a forum that you may want to join to voice your opinion. Again, the links are below.
HUSH CRIMES Rally - 2007!
Special thanks to the Aryan Barbarian of "Expose Them All" blog for all of the above info!
SPECIAL NOTICE: A rally of White people of EVERY background is being planned to take place in Knoxville, TN in late spring/early summer 2007. The theme is "Hush Crimes" - the media refuses to report on crimes against OUR race with the same ferocity as crimes against other races - even though crimes committed against us, is much more prevalent. . . . NOTE: See poster/flyer at bottom of page [see link to the Expose Them All blog site above to see the flyer.]
START TODAY! GET THE WORD OUT! “HUSH CRIME RALLY” --- > Knoxville, Tennessee . . . in the planning stages ---- > NOW!!!
This rally began to come to light after the brutal and savage carjacking, kidnapping, rape, sodomy and murder of a young White couple accosted by black savages while on a date. The national jewish owned networks have refused to report on this vicious and sadistic black attack. The victims; “Christopher Newsom” and "Channon Christian” will be honored and remembered in a rally scheduled for late spring/early summer. Please plan to attend.
For more information, see the links below. Also note: VNN, is organizing the rally. Keep up to date by browsing that site. VNN has a forum that you may want to join to voice your opinion. Again, the links are below.
HUSH CRIMES Rally - 2007!
External Links (VNNF) concerning the rally:
Channon Christian & Chris Newsom Memorial Rally
Channon Christian
Christopher Newsom
(Will have some of the same links as Channon Christian)
HUSH CRIME OF THE MILLENNIUM: niggers Gang-Rape, Torture, and Murder Channon Christian and Chris Newsom
Rally/Demonstration on Behalf of Channon Christian (AND Christopher Newsom)
Channon Christian & Chris Newsom Memorial Rally
Channon Christian
Christopher Newsom
(Will have some of the same links as Channon Christian)
HUSH CRIME OF THE MILLENNIUM: niggers Gang-Rape, Torture, and Murder Channon Christian and Chris Newsom
Rally/Demonstration on Behalf of Channon Christian (AND Christopher Newsom)
Channon Christian and Christopher Newsom
Special thanks to the Aryan Barbarian of "Expose Them All" blog for all of the above info!
SPECIAL NOTICE: A rally of White people of EVERY background is being planned to take place in Knoxville, TN in late spring/early summer 2007. The theme is "Hush Crimes" - the media refuses to report on crimes against OUR race with the same ferocity as crimes against other races - even though crimes committed against us, is much more prevalent. . . . NOTE: See poster/flyer at bottom of page [see link to the Expose Them All blog site above to see the flyer.]
Saturday, March 24, 2007
The Rapture Myth
This article was published on Planet Preterist Columns
The URL for this story is: http://planetpreterist.com/news-2008.html
The Rapture Myth by Charles Roberts
No part of Scripture can be interpreted in such a way as to render it in conflict with what is clearly taught elsewhere in Scripture.
Comparing this text in 1 Thessalonians to the text in Matthew 24 will help you to better understand its meaning.
Matthew 24:30-31 (KJV) And then shall appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven: and then shall all the tribes of the earth mourn, and they shall see the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory. 31 And he shall send his angels with a great sound of a trumpet, and they shall gather together his elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other.
Jesus spoke these words in the context of the destruction of Jerusalem and said that their generation would see all these things fulfilled (Matthew 24:34).
In biblical language, "clouds" are symbolic of God's wrath and judgment against the enemies of His people.
David said that the Lord delivered him from his enemies while descending on clouds in Psalm 18:3-15.
The Lord said that He would ride into Egypt on a cloud and punish them:
Turn with me to:
Isaiah 19:1 (KJV) The burden of Egypt. Behold, the LORD rideth upon a swift cloud, and shall come into Egypt: and the idols of Egypt shall be moved at his presence, and the heart of Egypt shall melt in the midst of it.
The Lord did not literally ride on a cloud, but Egypt did receive this judgment at the hands of the Assyrians (Isaiah 20:1-6). The idea of Jesus physically coming on the clouds would have been contrary to the nature of their understanding of the Old Testament prophets.
In Matthew 24, Jesus predicted his coming to gather together the saints in that generation. 1 Thessalonians 4-5 is dealing with exactly the same coming, judgment, and gathering that Matt. 24 is.
1 Thessalonians 4:16 (NKJV) For the Lord Himself will descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of an archangel, and with the trumpet of God. And the dead in Christ will rise first.
Paul is talking to the Thessalonians about Christ's coming in judgment in that generation. As you look back you see that this judgment coming was accomplished in the destruction of the Temple at Jerusalem in AD 70.
Now if you are a good student of the Bible, you might well be asking yourself, well, why doesn’t the Bible teach this?
Let me answer that question in two ways:
First of all, the BIBLE DOES teach it. That’s what Matthew 24, Luke 21, Mark 13, and the entire book of Revelation are all about! But secondly, you will not find ANY reference in the whole of the NT to the destruction of the Temple as a something had come and gone, as a past event.
Instead you only find predictions of it. Now what does that tell you? It tells you that the whole of the NT from Matt 1 to Rev 22 was written BEFORE the Temple’s destruction in AD 66-70.
1 Thessalonians 4:17 (NKJV) Then we who are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air. And thus we shall always be with the Lord.
This is the verse that the physical rapture theory comes from.
Let's start with the first word in the verses -the word "then." This is the Greek word epeita, and the best translation becomes "after then", "after that", or "after that time", and thereby doesn't include the idea of right after.
Let's look at some other uses of epeita to get a clearer idea of its meaning:
Galatians 1:18 (NKJV) Then (epeita) after three years I went up to Jerusalem to see Peter, and remained with him fifteen days.
In this case, the word "then" involved at least three years later.
Galatians 2:1 (NKJV) Then (epeita) after fourteen years I went up again to Jerusalem with Barnabas, and also took Titus with me.
Now look at 1 Corinthians 15:5-8:
1 Corinthians 15:5-8 (NKJV) and that He was seen by Cephas, then (eita) by the twelve. 6 After that (epeita) He was seen by over five hundred brethren at once, of whom the greater part remain to the present, but some have fallen asleep. 7 After that (epeita) He was seen by James, then (eita) by all the apostles. 8 Then last of all He was seen by me also, as by one born out of due time.
The point is, that the form of the word for "then" used in 1 Thessalonians 4:17 is not the form eita, meaning: "right after", but the epeita, meaning: "after that time."
1 Thessalonians 4:17 (NKJV) Then (after that time) we who are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air. And thus we shall always be with the Lord.
The words "caught up" are the Greek word harpazo, it means: "to snatch away." This is where the word "rapture" comes from. When the NT was translated from Greek into Latin, the Latin word used here is "rapiemur" from which we get the English word, Rapture.
But being "caught up" means something different than a levitation of the physical body from earth up into the atmosphere of the sky. Harpazo could refer to the body being "caught up" but it could also refer to the Christian being "caught up" without the body.
If I am coming to visit you and I have to take the Interstate to get to where you are, I may well get physically “caught up” in traffic. But that doesn’t mean I go in an upward direction. By the same token, I may get so engrossed in reading a novel or watching a movie that I get so “caught up” in it that I lose all track of time. My being “caught up” in reading a novel describes a state of mind, not a physical movement.
Now I don’t believe that the Bible teaches, and I think we all know that Paul didn't mean, that living Christians would be caught up in their living, physical bodies at the judgment coming of Christ because that never happened. Christians were still around on the earth after the Fall of Jerusalem, as history plainly tells us.
1 Thessalonians 4:17 (NKJV) Then (later on, after that) we who are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air. And thus we shall always be with the Lord.
Paul says that those who were alive at the judgment coming will later be caught up together with the dead who were raised, to meet the Lord in the air. You might ask, "What does the Bible mean when it says that we shall be caught up together to meet the Lord in the air?" Does this mean we'll be physically sucked up into the sky? What does the word "air" mean? Is it in our atmosphere or the air we breath? I think that Ephesians chapter 2 gives us an idea of what air means here.
Eph 2:2: "And you were dead in your trespasses and sins, in which you formerly walked
according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the AIR, of the spirit that is now working in the sons of disobedience."
The word "air" is an another word for heavenly or spiritual realm. Satan was always an opponent of the scheme of redemption, as we can see throughout the Bible. He was (past tense) the prince of the power of the air.
In Rom. 16:20, Paul says that Satan would be crushed "shortly" under their feet (remember original relevance).
Jesus now has taken over that sphere and rules in the "air" with the saints. If that is the same "air" where the saints were to meet, then there is no necessity for us to believe that the rapture has reference to a physical realm.
Paul believed that the Lord would return in his lifetime. He preached strongly about the coming judgment upon that generation, and about a resurrection, but he never spoke of a physical "rapture" for living Christians. What is popular misunderstood to be The "rapture" deals with a passage to the heavenly realm. All believers are all snatched away when they die. This gathering began with the consummation of the kingdom, after the resurrection of the dead saints out of Hades, and continues throughout this age.
Now, the church confesses that there will be an end point to this. History is moving toward a final consummation and culmination of this process wherein a new heavens and new earth will finally come into being.
1 Thessalonians 4:18 (NKJV) Therefore comfort one another with these words.
Our hope is not to be snatched physically off the face of the earth prior to our death. What did our Lord Jesus himself pray concerning his Apostles?
NKJ John 17:15 "I do not pray that You should take them out of the world, but that You should keep them from the evil one.
NJB John 17:15 I am not asking you to remove them from the world, but to protect them from the Evil One.
Our hope is that when we do die physically, we will be "raptured" into the heavenly realm to forever dwell in the presence of the Lord. "Therefore comfort one another with these words."
(the author gratefully acknowledges his reliance upon the works of Gary DeMar and John Bray for some of the examples and illustrations in this article)
Note: Opinions presented on PlanetPreterist.com or by PlanetPreterist.com columnists may not necessarily reflect the position of PlanetPreterist.com, or reflect the beliefs, doctrine or theological position of all other preterists. We encourage all readers to first and foremost carefully analyze all articles in the light of God's Word.
Copyright planetpreterist.com. PRETERISM and PRETERISM.COM are registered trademarks of Planet Preterist. Read the complete article at:
http://planetpreterist.com/news-2008.html
The URL for this story is: http://planetpreterist.com/news-2008.html
The Rapture Myth by Charles Roberts
No part of Scripture can be interpreted in such a way as to render it in conflict with what is clearly taught elsewhere in Scripture.
Comparing this text in 1 Thessalonians to the text in Matthew 24 will help you to better understand its meaning.
Matthew 24:30-31 (KJV) And then shall appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven: and then shall all the tribes of the earth mourn, and they shall see the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory. 31 And he shall send his angels with a great sound of a trumpet, and they shall gather together his elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other.
Jesus spoke these words in the context of the destruction of Jerusalem and said that their generation would see all these things fulfilled (Matthew 24:34).
In biblical language, "clouds" are symbolic of God's wrath and judgment against the enemies of His people.
David said that the Lord delivered him from his enemies while descending on clouds in Psalm 18:3-15.
The Lord said that He would ride into Egypt on a cloud and punish them:
Turn with me to:
Isaiah 19:1 (KJV) The burden of Egypt. Behold, the LORD rideth upon a swift cloud, and shall come into Egypt: and the idols of Egypt shall be moved at his presence, and the heart of Egypt shall melt in the midst of it.
The Lord did not literally ride on a cloud, but Egypt did receive this judgment at the hands of the Assyrians (Isaiah 20:1-6). The idea of Jesus physically coming on the clouds would have been contrary to the nature of their understanding of the Old Testament prophets.
In Matthew 24, Jesus predicted his coming to gather together the saints in that generation. 1 Thessalonians 4-5 is dealing with exactly the same coming, judgment, and gathering that Matt. 24 is.
1 Thessalonians 4:16 (NKJV) For the Lord Himself will descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of an archangel, and with the trumpet of God. And the dead in Christ will rise first.
Paul is talking to the Thessalonians about Christ's coming in judgment in that generation. As you look back you see that this judgment coming was accomplished in the destruction of the Temple at Jerusalem in AD 70.
Now if you are a good student of the Bible, you might well be asking yourself, well, why doesn’t the Bible teach this?
Let me answer that question in two ways:
First of all, the BIBLE DOES teach it. That’s what Matthew 24, Luke 21, Mark 13, and the entire book of Revelation are all about! But secondly, you will not find ANY reference in the whole of the NT to the destruction of the Temple as a something had come and gone, as a past event.
Instead you only find predictions of it. Now what does that tell you? It tells you that the whole of the NT from Matt 1 to Rev 22 was written BEFORE the Temple’s destruction in AD 66-70.
1 Thessalonians 4:17 (NKJV) Then we who are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air. And thus we shall always be with the Lord.
This is the verse that the physical rapture theory comes from.
Let's start with the first word in the verses -the word "then." This is the Greek word epeita, and the best translation becomes "after then", "after that", or "after that time", and thereby doesn't include the idea of right after.
Let's look at some other uses of epeita to get a clearer idea of its meaning:
Galatians 1:18 (NKJV) Then (epeita) after three years I went up to Jerusalem to see Peter, and remained with him fifteen days.
In this case, the word "then" involved at least three years later.
Galatians 2:1 (NKJV) Then (epeita) after fourteen years I went up again to Jerusalem with Barnabas, and also took Titus with me.
Now look at 1 Corinthians 15:5-8:
1 Corinthians 15:5-8 (NKJV) and that He was seen by Cephas, then (eita) by the twelve. 6 After that (epeita) He was seen by over five hundred brethren at once, of whom the greater part remain to the present, but some have fallen asleep. 7 After that (epeita) He was seen by James, then (eita) by all the apostles. 8 Then last of all He was seen by me also, as by one born out of due time.
The point is, that the form of the word for "then" used in 1 Thessalonians 4:17 is not the form eita, meaning: "right after", but the epeita, meaning: "after that time."
1 Thessalonians 4:17 (NKJV) Then (after that time) we who are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air. And thus we shall always be with the Lord.
The words "caught up" are the Greek word harpazo, it means: "to snatch away." This is where the word "rapture" comes from. When the NT was translated from Greek into Latin, the Latin word used here is "rapiemur" from which we get the English word, Rapture.
But being "caught up" means something different than a levitation of the physical body from earth up into the atmosphere of the sky. Harpazo could refer to the body being "caught up" but it could also refer to the Christian being "caught up" without the body.
If I am coming to visit you and I have to take the Interstate to get to where you are, I may well get physically “caught up” in traffic. But that doesn’t mean I go in an upward direction. By the same token, I may get so engrossed in reading a novel or watching a movie that I get so “caught up” in it that I lose all track of time. My being “caught up” in reading a novel describes a state of mind, not a physical movement.
Now I don’t believe that the Bible teaches, and I think we all know that Paul didn't mean, that living Christians would be caught up in their living, physical bodies at the judgment coming of Christ because that never happened. Christians were still around on the earth after the Fall of Jerusalem, as history plainly tells us.
1 Thessalonians 4:17 (NKJV) Then (later on, after that) we who are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air. And thus we shall always be with the Lord.
Paul says that those who were alive at the judgment coming will later be caught up together with the dead who were raised, to meet the Lord in the air. You might ask, "What does the Bible mean when it says that we shall be caught up together to meet the Lord in the air?" Does this mean we'll be physically sucked up into the sky? What does the word "air" mean? Is it in our atmosphere or the air we breath? I think that Ephesians chapter 2 gives us an idea of what air means here.
Eph 2:2: "And you were dead in your trespasses and sins, in which you formerly walked
according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the AIR, of the spirit that is now working in the sons of disobedience."
The word "air" is an another word for heavenly or spiritual realm. Satan was always an opponent of the scheme of redemption, as we can see throughout the Bible. He was (past tense) the prince of the power of the air.
In Rom. 16:20, Paul says that Satan would be crushed "shortly" under their feet (remember original relevance).
Jesus now has taken over that sphere and rules in the "air" with the saints. If that is the same "air" where the saints were to meet, then there is no necessity for us to believe that the rapture has reference to a physical realm.
Paul believed that the Lord would return in his lifetime. He preached strongly about the coming judgment upon that generation, and about a resurrection, but he never spoke of a physical "rapture" for living Christians. What is popular misunderstood to be The "rapture" deals with a passage to the heavenly realm. All believers are all snatched away when they die. This gathering began with the consummation of the kingdom, after the resurrection of the dead saints out of Hades, and continues throughout this age.
Now, the church confesses that there will be an end point to this. History is moving toward a final consummation and culmination of this process wherein a new heavens and new earth will finally come into being.
1 Thessalonians 4:18 (NKJV) Therefore comfort one another with these words.
Our hope is not to be snatched physically off the face of the earth prior to our death. What did our Lord Jesus himself pray concerning his Apostles?
NKJ John 17:15 "I do not pray that You should take them out of the world, but that You should keep them from the evil one.
NJB John 17:15 I am not asking you to remove them from the world, but to protect them from the Evil One.
Our hope is that when we do die physically, we will be "raptured" into the heavenly realm to forever dwell in the presence of the Lord. "Therefore comfort one another with these words."
(the author gratefully acknowledges his reliance upon the works of Gary DeMar and John Bray for some of the examples and illustrations in this article)
Note: Opinions presented on PlanetPreterist.com or by PlanetPreterist.com columnists may not necessarily reflect the position of PlanetPreterist.com, or reflect the beliefs, doctrine or theological position of all other preterists. We encourage all readers to first and foremost carefully analyze all articles in the light of God's Word.
Copyright planetpreterist.com. PRETERISM and PRETERISM.COM are registered trademarks of Planet Preterist. Read the complete article at:
http://planetpreterist.com/news-2008.html
Sunday, March 11, 2007
It's ALL Crackpot Theology When It Comes To Modern Israel
Crackpot Theology Makes Bad Foreign Policy by Doug Bandow
Doug Bandow is a senior fellow at the Cato Institute.
Washington needs to develop a Mideast policy that advances the interests of America, not one that advances a peculiar interpretation of Christian theology.
Georgia's Republican state chairman, Ralph Reed, recently wrote: "There is an undeniable and powerful spiritual connection between Israel and the Christian faith. It is where Jesus was born and where he conducted his ministry."
So? This has nothing to do with the formulation of foreign policy... [for modern day America. Sure most Americans may consider themselves atleast nominally Christian and thus feel some nostalgia for the places mentioned in the New Testament but that was 2000 years ago! The modern Israeli state is no way shape or form, not even spiritually or Theologically the same place it was in ancient times nor the first century. -comment in brackets added by Paul Kersey]
Onetime Republican presidential candidate Gary Bauer goes further: "The Bible is pretty clear that the land is what is called covenant land, that God made a covenant with the Jews that that would be their land forever."
Yet the premise of Christianity is that that covenant was voided by disobedience, and thus now runs to the body of Christian believers. [Exactly! Moreover, the covenant was made with Israelites which consisted of 12 tribes not just the one tribe of Judah which Jews claim to be the descendants of. Jesus called them imposters and liars and of their father the devil not Abraham. By the time of Christ Judea had already absorbed so much Edomite blood [the blood of Essau who lost the birth right to Jacob/Israel that most Judeans were no longer genuine Israelites. Old Testament Law clearly states that a mamzer or mongrel can not inherit the promise, birthright of Israel nor even enter heaven or the Kingdom of God! ~ Paul Kersey]
Moreover, why assume that nonreligious Jews who established a secular state in the Mideast are entitled to the same land once held by religious Jews following in the line of Moses? As Marvin Olasky, editor of World Magazine, notes, "A biblical case can certainly be made that Israelis who are atheists have tossed away their inheritance just as Esau did."
And if the land was to belong to Jews forever, why did they lose control of it? Surely God does not require America's assistance to give it back.
[It wasn't about land it was about a racial nation. That is why Israelites were commanded to drive out , or "ethnically cleanse" to use the modern PC phraseology, the new nation. The word "holy" is a poor english translation of the original Greek word which should have been translated separate or separated. God's command is not to be pious or "holier than thou" but to be a separate people, nation, race.
The Jews are trying to separate themselves in their attempt to gain the dominion promised to pure descendants of Adam but God will allow no rest for the wicked. They will never have peace and will never be able to create anything other than Babylon style mongrel empires.
God says they will keep building and He will keep tearing down what they build as He did with the Tower of Babel. When they try to unite different cultures and races under their rule while they themselves attempt to remain a separate people [the untouchable elite who is above the law] God will send them strong delusions to confuse them and throw them into a cycle of bitterly divisive and self-destructive in-fighting and anarchy.]
Finally, to how much are Jews entitled? A generous reading of Genesis suggests ownership of Jordan and chunks of Iraq, Saudi Arabia and Syria.
Another group of Christians, primarily Protestants, cite their dispensationalist eschatology, or end times theology. Never mind the complicated details of this minority interpretation. Backing whoever happens to be Israel's Prime Minister is supposed to accelerate Christ's return.
Of course, there is no way to prove what God actually intends. But the dispensationalist case is particularly strained. For instance, candidates for the Antichrist include the Pope, European Union President Roman Prodi and England's Prince Charles.
[no people has ever fit the definition of anti-Christs better than the modern Talmudic and atheist Zionist Jewish people themselves! They are the true anti-spiritual and material inheritors of Cain, Essau, and the Pharisees whom Jesus called a den of vipers - i.e. compare to what God said in Genesis would be at enmity [war] with the seed of Adamkind, the seed of the serpent!]
In fact, the book of Revelation is best understood in the context of the Roman Empire, when it was written. It foreshadows an apocalyptic end of mankind; it does not provide an exact time line of events.
[No it does not literally nor figuratively have anything at all to do with "an apocalyptic end of mankind." The Apocalypse of Jesus Christ predicted the end of the Old Testament Hebraist/Yahweyist religion centered around the Temple of Jerusalem and the sacrificial covenant and all it's associated culture, rituals, and way of life. The world as the Israelites had known it for so many centuries was coming to a close and a new and everlasting covenant was beginning which kept what was pure and discarded what was corrupt and barren.]
This argument also arrogantly assumes that the God who reconciled mankind through the sacrifice of his son requires Washington's help to get the end right. Interestingly, some Orthodox Jews are hostile to Zionism precisely because they view it as hubris for man to try to supplant God's timing. [Note that these anti-Zionist Jews are still very much Zionists in the theological sense. They only differ in that they believe God will miraculously save the Jews - those who are not atheist anyway - and give them all the power and glory the modern militant atheist Zionists have been trying to gain by force. So really they are no different as far as Christ is concerned. They merely differ in their methods to the same end. To Christ there are only two kinds of people in the world. Those who are with Him and those against Him.]
Another argument is that only by supporting Israel will America prosper. For example, activist Ed McAteer cites the promise that "I will bless them who bless you and curse them who curse you." Two decades ago, the Rev. Jerry Falwell declared that God had been kind to America only because "America has been kind to the Jews."
[What God is referring to here is not modern Talmudic Jewry but rather His chosen race descended from Adam. But Adam fell and many of his descendants corrupted their seedline and did not preserve the original racial identity and associated genetically determined inheritance [upon which spiritual things in this world must be based - just as faith without works is dead so is there no spirit without a body and light cannot have anything to do with darkness and noone can serve two masters or have the mixed inheritance of two opposing physical or spiritual natures. They can try to but God did not create a world conducive or friendly to such unnatural and unprovidential experiments they will never be sustainable "alternative lifestyles"]
Curiously, there's no verse explaining that to bless the Jewish people or to be kind to them means doing whatever the secular government of a largely nonreligious people wants several thousand years later. This is junk theology at its worst. Or almost worst. Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.) said in a speech last March: "One of the reasons I believe the spiritual door was opened for an attack against the United States of America is that the policy of our government has been to ask the Israelis, and demand it with pressure, not to retaliate in a significant way against the terrorist strikes that have been launched against them."
Wow. God is punishing the American people because their government, which has long supported Israel more firmly than any other, is insufficiently pro-Israel.
Speaking for the creator of the universe is a dicey proposition and I won't try. But presuming that a biblical injunction to "bless" the Jewish people requires a secular state run by nominal Christians to offer a blank check to a secular state run by ethnic Jews is simply bizarre.
There are lots of sensible policy arguments for supporting Israel. But conflicting interests must still be balanced. Crackpot theology is no substitute for intelligent analysis.
[Name one sensible argument for supporting Israel. Professing to be wise you become a fool. No argument for the support of Israel can make any sense, when it the modern Jewish Identity is subjected to the scrutiny of intelligent analysis - we see that it's all crackpot theology.
Doug Bandow is a senior fellow at the Cato Institute.
Washington needs to develop a Mideast policy that advances the interests of America, not one that advances a peculiar interpretation of Christian theology.
Georgia's Republican state chairman, Ralph Reed, recently wrote: "There is an undeniable and powerful spiritual connection between Israel and the Christian faith. It is where Jesus was born and where he conducted his ministry."
So? This has nothing to do with the formulation of foreign policy... [for modern day America. Sure most Americans may consider themselves atleast nominally Christian and thus feel some nostalgia for the places mentioned in the New Testament but that was 2000 years ago! The modern Israeli state is no way shape or form, not even spiritually or Theologically the same place it was in ancient times nor the first century. -comment in brackets added by Paul Kersey]
Onetime Republican presidential candidate Gary Bauer goes further: "The Bible is pretty clear that the land is what is called covenant land, that God made a covenant with the Jews that that would be their land forever."
Yet the premise of Christianity is that that covenant was voided by disobedience, and thus now runs to the body of Christian believers. [Exactly! Moreover, the covenant was made with Israelites which consisted of 12 tribes not just the one tribe of Judah which Jews claim to be the descendants of. Jesus called them imposters and liars and of their father the devil not Abraham. By the time of Christ Judea had already absorbed so much Edomite blood [the blood of Essau who lost the birth right to Jacob/Israel that most Judeans were no longer genuine Israelites. Old Testament Law clearly states that a mamzer or mongrel can not inherit the promise, birthright of Israel nor even enter heaven or the Kingdom of God! ~ Paul Kersey]
Moreover, why assume that nonreligious Jews who established a secular state in the Mideast are entitled to the same land once held by religious Jews following in the line of Moses? As Marvin Olasky, editor of World Magazine, notes, "A biblical case can certainly be made that Israelis who are atheists have tossed away their inheritance just as Esau did."
And if the land was to belong to Jews forever, why did they lose control of it? Surely God does not require America's assistance to give it back.
[It wasn't about land it was about a racial nation. That is why Israelites were commanded to drive out , or "ethnically cleanse" to use the modern PC phraseology, the new nation. The word "holy" is a poor english translation of the original Greek word which should have been translated separate or separated. God's command is not to be pious or "holier than thou" but to be a separate people, nation, race.
The Jews are trying to separate themselves in their attempt to gain the dominion promised to pure descendants of Adam but God will allow no rest for the wicked. They will never have peace and will never be able to create anything other than Babylon style mongrel empires.
God says they will keep building and He will keep tearing down what they build as He did with the Tower of Babel. When they try to unite different cultures and races under their rule while they themselves attempt to remain a separate people [the untouchable elite who is above the law] God will send them strong delusions to confuse them and throw them into a cycle of bitterly divisive and self-destructive in-fighting and anarchy.]
Finally, to how much are Jews entitled? A generous reading of Genesis suggests ownership of Jordan and chunks of Iraq, Saudi Arabia and Syria.
Another group of Christians, primarily Protestants, cite their dispensationalist eschatology, or end times theology. Never mind the complicated details of this minority interpretation. Backing whoever happens to be Israel's Prime Minister is supposed to accelerate Christ's return.
Of course, there is no way to prove what God actually intends. But the dispensationalist case is particularly strained. For instance, candidates for the Antichrist include the Pope, European Union President Roman Prodi and England's Prince Charles.
[no people has ever fit the definition of anti-Christs better than the modern Talmudic and atheist Zionist Jewish people themselves! They are the true anti-spiritual and material inheritors of Cain, Essau, and the Pharisees whom Jesus called a den of vipers - i.e. compare to what God said in Genesis would be at enmity [war] with the seed of Adamkind, the seed of the serpent!]
In fact, the book of Revelation is best understood in the context of the Roman Empire, when it was written. It foreshadows an apocalyptic end of mankind; it does not provide an exact time line of events.
[No it does not literally nor figuratively have anything at all to do with "an apocalyptic end of mankind." The Apocalypse of Jesus Christ predicted the end of the Old Testament Hebraist/Yahweyist religion centered around the Temple of Jerusalem and the sacrificial covenant and all it's associated culture, rituals, and way of life. The world as the Israelites had known it for so many centuries was coming to a close and a new and everlasting covenant was beginning which kept what was pure and discarded what was corrupt and barren.]
This argument also arrogantly assumes that the God who reconciled mankind through the sacrifice of his son requires Washington's help to get the end right. Interestingly, some Orthodox Jews are hostile to Zionism precisely because they view it as hubris for man to try to supplant God's timing. [Note that these anti-Zionist Jews are still very much Zionists in the theological sense. They only differ in that they believe God will miraculously save the Jews - those who are not atheist anyway - and give them all the power and glory the modern militant atheist Zionists have been trying to gain by force. So really they are no different as far as Christ is concerned. They merely differ in their methods to the same end. To Christ there are only two kinds of people in the world. Those who are with Him and those against Him.]
Another argument is that only by supporting Israel will America prosper. For example, activist Ed McAteer cites the promise that "I will bless them who bless you and curse them who curse you." Two decades ago, the Rev. Jerry Falwell declared that God had been kind to America only because "America has been kind to the Jews."
[What God is referring to here is not modern Talmudic Jewry but rather His chosen race descended from Adam. But Adam fell and many of his descendants corrupted their seedline and did not preserve the original racial identity and associated genetically determined inheritance [upon which spiritual things in this world must be based - just as faith without works is dead so is there no spirit without a body and light cannot have anything to do with darkness and noone can serve two masters or have the mixed inheritance of two opposing physical or spiritual natures. They can try to but God did not create a world conducive or friendly to such unnatural and unprovidential experiments they will never be sustainable "alternative lifestyles"]
Curiously, there's no verse explaining that to bless the Jewish people or to be kind to them means doing whatever the secular government of a largely nonreligious people wants several thousand years later. This is junk theology at its worst. Or almost worst. Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.) said in a speech last March: "One of the reasons I believe the spiritual door was opened for an attack against the United States of America is that the policy of our government has been to ask the Israelis, and demand it with pressure, not to retaliate in a significant way against the terrorist strikes that have been launched against them."
Wow. God is punishing the American people because their government, which has long supported Israel more firmly than any other, is insufficiently pro-Israel.
Speaking for the creator of the universe is a dicey proposition and I won't try. But presuming that a biblical injunction to "bless" the Jewish people requires a secular state run by nominal Christians to offer a blank check to a secular state run by ethnic Jews is simply bizarre.
There are lots of sensible policy arguments for supporting Israel. But conflicting interests must still be balanced. Crackpot theology is no substitute for intelligent analysis.
[Name one sensible argument for supporting Israel. Professing to be wise you become a fool. No argument for the support of Israel can make any sense, when it the modern Jewish Identity is subjected to the scrutiny of intelligent analysis - we see that it's all crackpot theology.
Saturday, March 3, 2007
Wednesday, February 28, 2007
Ethical Socialism
"Ethical-socialism is neither more nor less than the sentiment of action-at-a-distance, the moral pathos of the third dimension; and the root feeling of Care-care for those who are with us, and for those who are to follow."
OSWALD SPENGLER, THE DECLINE OF THE WEST, p.178, of the abridged edition, Helmut Werner, ( translation by C.F. Atkinson and re-prepared by Arthur Helps), The Modern Library, New York.)
"If we allow that Socialism (in the ethical, not the economic, sense) is the world-feeling which seeks to carry out its own views on behalf of all, then we are without exception, willingly or no, wittingly or no, Socialists. Even Nietzsche, that most passionate opponent of the ‘herd morale’, was perfectly incapable of limiting his zeal to himself in the Classical way. He thought only of ‘mankind’, and he attacked everyone who differed from himself. Epicurus, on the contrary, was heartily indifferent to others’ opinions and acts. But Nietzschean Zarathustra – though professedly standing beyond good and evil – breathes from end to end the pain of seeing men to be other than as he would have them be, and the deep and utterly un-Classical desire to devote a life to their reformation – his own sense of the word, naturally, being the only one. It is just this, the general transvaluation, that makes ethical monotheism and – using the word in a novel and deep sense – socialism. All world improvers are Socialists."
(OSWALD SPENGLER, pp. 176-177).
By virtue of Nietzsche’s hostility to mob values (in Nietzsche’s Vedantist terminology i.e. Chandala morality), he has been accused by some Marxoids of being a reactionary,and many degenerate laissez-faire economic-elitists, such as Ayn Rand, have hailed him as one of their own. Both of these views are completely incorrect, as will be demonstrated by reference to Nietzsche’s writings.
"For what drove me to the poorest, O Zarathustra? Was it not disgust with our richest? – disgust with those punished by riches, who glean advantage from all kinds of sweepings, with cold eyes, rank thoughts, disgust with this rabble that stinks to heaven, disgust with this guilded, debased mob whose fathers were pick-pockets or carrion-birds or ragmen with compliant, lustful forgetful wives – for they are all of them not far from whores – mob above and mob below! What are the ‘poor’ and ‘rich’ today! I unlearned this distinction – then I fled away, far away and even farther, until I came to these cows."
(FRIEDRICH NIETZSCHE, THUS SPOKE ZARATHUSTRA, Penguin Classics (translation by R.J. Hollingdale), p. 228)
" ‘Good manners?’ replied the other king indignantly and bitterly. ‘What is it we are avoiding then? Is it not good manners? Our good company? – Truly, better to live amongst hermits and goat herds than with our guilded, false, painted rabble – although it calls itself ‘nobility’. But there everything is false and rotten, most of all the blood, thanks to old evil diseases and worse quacks. – I think the finest and dearest man today is a healthy peasant, uncouth, cunning, obstinate, enduring: that is the noblest type today. – The peasant is the finest man today; and the peasantry should be master. But ours is the kingdom of the rabble – I no longer let myself be taken in. (F.NIETZSCHE, pp. 258-259).
"But whoever wants to eat with us must also lend a hand, even the kings. For with Zarathustra even a king may be a cook." (F. NIETZSCHE, p. 295).
" ‘The moon has its court, and the court has its mooncalves: to all that comes from the court, however, do the paupers and all the adroit pauper-virtues pray. ‘I serve, you serve, we serve’ – thus all adroit virtue pray to the prince: so that the merited star may at last be fastened to the narrow breast. But the moon still revolves around all that is earthly: so the prince too, still revolves around what is most earthly of all: that, however, is the shopkeepers’ gold. The God of Hosts is not the god of the golden ingots; the prince proposes, but the shopkeeper – disposes!’".
" ‘By all that is luminous and strong and good in you, O Zarathustra! Spit upon this city of shopkeepers and turn back! Here all blood flows foul and tepid and frothy through all veins: spit upon the great city that is the great rubbish pile where all the scum froths together! Spit upon the city of flattened souls and narrow breasts, of slant eyes and sticky fingers – upon the city of importunate, the shameless, the ranters in writing and speech, the overheated ambitious: where everything rotten, disreputable, lustful, gloomy, overripe, ulcerous, conspiratorial festers together – spit upon the city and turn back!’"
"But here Zarathustra interrupted the frothing fool and stopped his mouth. ‘Have done!’ (cried Zarathustra). ‘Your speech and your kind have long disgusted me! Why do you live so long in the swamp that you had to become a frog and toad yourself? Does not foul, foaming swamp-blood now flow through your own veins, so that you have learned to quack and rail like this? Why did you not go into the forest? Or plough the earth? Is the sea not full of green islands?’"
" ‘I despise your contempt; and since you warned me, why did you not warn yourself? My contempt and my bird of warning shall ascend from LOVE ALONE; not from the swamp! They call you my ape, you frothing fool: but I call you my grunting pig – by grunting you are undoing even my praise of folly. What, then, was it that started you grunting? That nobody had flattered you enough: therefore you sat beside this filth, so that you might have cause for much grunting – so that you might have cause for much revenge! For all your frothing, you vain fool, is revenge; I have divined you well!’"
" ‘But your foolish teaching is harmful to me, even when you are right! And if Zarathustra’s teaching were a hundred times justified, YOU would still – USE my teaching falsely!’ Thus spoke Zarathustra; and he looked at the great city, sighed and was long silent. At length he spoke thus: ‘This great city, and not only this fool, disgusts me. In both there is nothing to make better, nothing to make worse. Woe to this great city! And I wish I could see already the pillar of fire in which it will be consumed! For such pillars of fire must precede the great noontide. Yet this has its time and its own destiny. But I offer you in farewell this precept, you fool: where one can no longer love, one should – PASS BY.’"
(F. NIETZSCHE, pp. 195-198).
"Watch and listen, you solitaries! From the future come winds with a stealthy flapping of wings; and good tidings go out to delicate ears. You solitaries of today, you have seceded from society, you shall one day be a people: from you, who have chosen out yourselves, shall a chosen people (my note: not to be confused with the "Chosen People", chauvinistic psychology of Talmudic Zionism, as according to Nietzschean philosophy, such a psychology is incompatible with mental hygiene) spring – and from this chosen people, the superman!"
"Truly, the earth shall yet become a house of healing! And already a new odour floats about it, an odour that brings health – and a new hope!"
(F. NIETZSCHE, pp. 102-103).
As a sample of Nietzschean philosophy, the cited extracts are more than decisive in establishing that he certainly was not a reactionary. A reactionary is one who desires to return to some previous Golden Age. Nietzsche who had a natural respect for the past believed that it would serve as a measure by which the future could be anticipated - his Golden Age is the New Dawn which will follow the great noontide of our Western Judaeo–Christian civilization. Neither was Nietzsche a conservative – he believed that all which was withered and devoid of objective organic vitality, should be toppled so as to permit new nascent life to replace it.
(All of the above is a selective sampling of an article by Alec Saunders entitled Nietzsche And Ethical Socialism For The New Millennium located on the Australian Nationalist site RADNET)
OSWALD SPENGLER, THE DECLINE OF THE WEST, p.178, of the abridged edition, Helmut Werner, ( translation by C.F. Atkinson and re-prepared by Arthur Helps), The Modern Library, New York.)
"If we allow that Socialism (in the ethical, not the economic, sense) is the world-feeling which seeks to carry out its own views on behalf of all, then we are without exception, willingly or no, wittingly or no, Socialists. Even Nietzsche, that most passionate opponent of the ‘herd morale’, was perfectly incapable of limiting his zeal to himself in the Classical way. He thought only of ‘mankind’, and he attacked everyone who differed from himself. Epicurus, on the contrary, was heartily indifferent to others’ opinions and acts. But Nietzschean Zarathustra – though professedly standing beyond good and evil – breathes from end to end the pain of seeing men to be other than as he would have them be, and the deep and utterly un-Classical desire to devote a life to their reformation – his own sense of the word, naturally, being the only one. It is just this, the general transvaluation, that makes ethical monotheism and – using the word in a novel and deep sense – socialism. All world improvers are Socialists."
(OSWALD SPENGLER, pp. 176-177).
By virtue of Nietzsche’s hostility to mob values (in Nietzsche’s Vedantist terminology i.e. Chandala morality), he has been accused by some Marxoids of being a reactionary,and many degenerate laissez-faire economic-elitists, such as Ayn Rand, have hailed him as one of their own. Both of these views are completely incorrect, as will be demonstrated by reference to Nietzsche’s writings.
"For what drove me to the poorest, O Zarathustra? Was it not disgust with our richest? – disgust with those punished by riches, who glean advantage from all kinds of sweepings, with cold eyes, rank thoughts, disgust with this rabble that stinks to heaven, disgust with this guilded, debased mob whose fathers were pick-pockets or carrion-birds or ragmen with compliant, lustful forgetful wives – for they are all of them not far from whores – mob above and mob below! What are the ‘poor’ and ‘rich’ today! I unlearned this distinction – then I fled away, far away and even farther, until I came to these cows."
(FRIEDRICH NIETZSCHE, THUS SPOKE ZARATHUSTRA, Penguin Classics (translation by R.J. Hollingdale), p. 228)
" ‘Good manners?’ replied the other king indignantly and bitterly. ‘What is it we are avoiding then? Is it not good manners? Our good company? – Truly, better to live amongst hermits and goat herds than with our guilded, false, painted rabble – although it calls itself ‘nobility’. But there everything is false and rotten, most of all the blood, thanks to old evil diseases and worse quacks. – I think the finest and dearest man today is a healthy peasant, uncouth, cunning, obstinate, enduring: that is the noblest type today. – The peasant is the finest man today; and the peasantry should be master. But ours is the kingdom of the rabble – I no longer let myself be taken in. (F.NIETZSCHE, pp. 258-259).
"But whoever wants to eat with us must also lend a hand, even the kings. For with Zarathustra even a king may be a cook." (F. NIETZSCHE, p. 295).
" ‘The moon has its court, and the court has its mooncalves: to all that comes from the court, however, do the paupers and all the adroit pauper-virtues pray. ‘I serve, you serve, we serve’ – thus all adroit virtue pray to the prince: so that the merited star may at last be fastened to the narrow breast. But the moon still revolves around all that is earthly: so the prince too, still revolves around what is most earthly of all: that, however, is the shopkeepers’ gold. The God of Hosts is not the god of the golden ingots; the prince proposes, but the shopkeeper – disposes!’".
" ‘By all that is luminous and strong and good in you, O Zarathustra! Spit upon this city of shopkeepers and turn back! Here all blood flows foul and tepid and frothy through all veins: spit upon the great city that is the great rubbish pile where all the scum froths together! Spit upon the city of flattened souls and narrow breasts, of slant eyes and sticky fingers – upon the city of importunate, the shameless, the ranters in writing and speech, the overheated ambitious: where everything rotten, disreputable, lustful, gloomy, overripe, ulcerous, conspiratorial festers together – spit upon the city and turn back!’"
"But here Zarathustra interrupted the frothing fool and stopped his mouth. ‘Have done!’ (cried Zarathustra). ‘Your speech and your kind have long disgusted me! Why do you live so long in the swamp that you had to become a frog and toad yourself? Does not foul, foaming swamp-blood now flow through your own veins, so that you have learned to quack and rail like this? Why did you not go into the forest? Or plough the earth? Is the sea not full of green islands?’"
" ‘I despise your contempt; and since you warned me, why did you not warn yourself? My contempt and my bird of warning shall ascend from LOVE ALONE; not from the swamp! They call you my ape, you frothing fool: but I call you my grunting pig – by grunting you are undoing even my praise of folly. What, then, was it that started you grunting? That nobody had flattered you enough: therefore you sat beside this filth, so that you might have cause for much grunting – so that you might have cause for much revenge! For all your frothing, you vain fool, is revenge; I have divined you well!’"
" ‘But your foolish teaching is harmful to me, even when you are right! And if Zarathustra’s teaching were a hundred times justified, YOU would still – USE my teaching falsely!’ Thus spoke Zarathustra; and he looked at the great city, sighed and was long silent. At length he spoke thus: ‘This great city, and not only this fool, disgusts me. In both there is nothing to make better, nothing to make worse. Woe to this great city! And I wish I could see already the pillar of fire in which it will be consumed! For such pillars of fire must precede the great noontide. Yet this has its time and its own destiny. But I offer you in farewell this precept, you fool: where one can no longer love, one should – PASS BY.’"
(F. NIETZSCHE, pp. 195-198).
"Watch and listen, you solitaries! From the future come winds with a stealthy flapping of wings; and good tidings go out to delicate ears. You solitaries of today, you have seceded from society, you shall one day be a people: from you, who have chosen out yourselves, shall a chosen people (my note: not to be confused with the "Chosen People", chauvinistic psychology of Talmudic Zionism, as according to Nietzschean philosophy, such a psychology is incompatible with mental hygiene) spring – and from this chosen people, the superman!"
"Truly, the earth shall yet become a house of healing! And already a new odour floats about it, an odour that brings health – and a new hope!"
(F. NIETZSCHE, pp. 102-103).
As a sample of Nietzschean philosophy, the cited extracts are more than decisive in establishing that he certainly was not a reactionary. A reactionary is one who desires to return to some previous Golden Age. Nietzsche who had a natural respect for the past believed that it would serve as a measure by which the future could be anticipated - his Golden Age is the New Dawn which will follow the great noontide of our Western Judaeo–Christian civilization. Neither was Nietzsche a conservative – he believed that all which was withered and devoid of objective organic vitality, should be toppled so as to permit new nascent life to replace it.
(All of the above is a selective sampling of an article by Alec Saunders entitled Nietzsche And Ethical Socialism For The New Millennium located on the Australian Nationalist site RADNET)
Functionalism & the father of sociology -- Emile Durkheim
Main ideas in Functionalism
The starting point of all Functionalism is that all societies have certain basic needs - Functional requirements which must be met if a society is to survive.
Explaining Social Order
In explaining the basis of social order in societies the starting point for Functionalists is to look at whole societies and not the individual...
Emile Durkheim draws an analogy between the way a biological organism works and society. The various organs of a living thing work together in order to maintain a healthy whole in much the same way that various institutions in society work together to produce social order.
Central Value System
Functionalists believe that the basis of an orderly society is the existence of a central value system that imposes common values on all its members. Therefore, when Functionalists look at the ways in which the various parts of society contribute to bringing about social order they are mainly concerned with the ways in which these parts help to perpetuate and maintain this common value system.
He argued that traditional societies were 'mechanical' and were held together by the fact that everyone was more or less the same, and hence had things in common. In traditional societies, argues Durkheim, the collective consciousness entirely subsumes individual consciousness—social norms are strong and social behavior is well-regulated.
In modern societies, he argued, the highly complex division of labor resulted in 'organic' solidarity. Different specializations in employment and social roles created dependencies that tied people to one another, since people no longer could count on filling all of their needs by themselves. In 'mechanical' societies, for example, subsistence farmers live in communities which are self-sufficient and knit together by a common heritage and common job. In modern 'organic' societies, workers earn money, and must rely on other people who specialize in certain products (groceries, clothing, etc.) to meet their needs. The result of increasing division of labor, according to Durkheim, is that individual consciousness emerges distinct from collective consciousness—often finding itself in conflict with collective consciousness.
The rapid change in society [the industrial revolution for example] due to increasing division of labor thus produces a state of confusion with regard to norms and increasing impersonality in social life, leading eventually to relative normlessness, i.e. the breakdown of social norms regulating behavior; Durkheim labels this state anomie. From a state of anomie come all forms of deviant behavior, most notably suicide.
Émile Durkheim saw socialism as rooted in the desire simply to bring the state closer to the realm of individual activity as a response to the growing anomie of capitalist society.
The starting point of all Functionalism is that all societies have certain basic needs - Functional requirements which must be met if a society is to survive.
Explaining Social Order
In explaining the basis of social order in societies the starting point for Functionalists is to look at whole societies and not the individual...
Emile Durkheim draws an analogy between the way a biological organism works and society. The various organs of a living thing work together in order to maintain a healthy whole in much the same way that various institutions in society work together to produce social order.
Central Value System
Functionalists believe that the basis of an orderly society is the existence of a central value system that imposes common values on all its members. Therefore, when Functionalists look at the ways in which the various parts of society contribute to bringing about social order they are mainly concerned with the ways in which these parts help to perpetuate and maintain this common value system.
He argued that traditional societies were 'mechanical' and were held together by the fact that everyone was more or less the same, and hence had things in common. In traditional societies, argues Durkheim, the collective consciousness entirely subsumes individual consciousness—social norms are strong and social behavior is well-regulated.
In modern societies, he argued, the highly complex division of labor resulted in 'organic' solidarity. Different specializations in employment and social roles created dependencies that tied people to one another, since people no longer could count on filling all of their needs by themselves. In 'mechanical' societies, for example, subsistence farmers live in communities which are self-sufficient and knit together by a common heritage and common job. In modern 'organic' societies, workers earn money, and must rely on other people who specialize in certain products (groceries, clothing, etc.) to meet their needs. The result of increasing division of labor, according to Durkheim, is that individual consciousness emerges distinct from collective consciousness—often finding itself in conflict with collective consciousness.
The rapid change in society [the industrial revolution for example] due to increasing division of labor thus produces a state of confusion with regard to norms and increasing impersonality in social life, leading eventually to relative normlessness, i.e. the breakdown of social norms regulating behavior; Durkheim labels this state anomie. From a state of anomie come all forms of deviant behavior, most notably suicide.
Émile Durkheim saw socialism as rooted in the desire simply to bring the state closer to the realm of individual activity as a response to the growing anomie of capitalist society.
Tuesday, February 27, 2007
The White Race - An Irreplaceable Nonrenewable Resource
It is high time that the building race of civilization be recognized as the world's most irreplaceable and nonrenewable resource. We are concerned about being on the endangered species list but the loss of such a vital resource ought to arouse the concern of everyone whether they are among the endangered or not.
Even those who are motivated by purely selfish aims and have zero loyalty to their own kind ought to see that it is in their own best interest to share such an all important concern. Once the White race is extinct, everything it created will go with it and there is no going back. Those who deny the legacy, intellectual property rights and worldy contributions of the race which made Western Civilization possible do so only at their own peril.
Even if they doubt the overwhelming evidence why would they take such an incredibly reckless risk? Do they not ask themselves "What if I am wrong?" If they are wrong and their posterity find themselves stuck in an endless series of progressively more ignorant and primitive dark ages and Zerzan's utopian vision of "Future Primitive" proves to be a dystopian nightmare as most utopian visions do in actual practice they will have lost everything; everyone will lose, and it will be too late to change their vote.
If we are wrong and what our opposition says is true [that race is nothing but skin color and were all the same and human life and progress is determined by class, wealth, environment, etc] will choosing our proposed solution [separation along racial lines -- NOT genocide which is actually what our opposition promotes] end in nearly so catastrophic long term consequences as their proposed solution would if they are in fact wrong?
No, the worst that would happen [assuming environmental determinism is right and all forms of genetic determinism or heredity wrong] would be that without our help [because we separated from them] the other races and nations would take a little longer to achieve our level of human progress or civilization and would necessarily go through more pain, more trials and tribulations than they would with the help of an already advanced culture and civilization.
Our opposition however, alarmists that they are, scream bloody murder because they refuse to accept that we say what we really mean and mean what we actually say. They insist that when we say racial separatism and self-determination we really mean race-war, hate-crime, mass-murder and genocide. Is this what they mean by establishing a sane and rational public dialog for reconciliation and establishing peace between different creeds, colors, nations, peoples?
If so then they are nothing but liars and hypocrites and anyone who would be party to that do not deserve to enjoy the protections, comforts or advantages of the civilized environment our ancestors created. They deserve to live in a world in which their own views are brought to their ultimate conclusion and they can experience first hand a world ruled not by Whites but rather one ruled by the Hobbesian reality behind Rousseau's "noble savage." They deserve to live where they insist all human life originated, the supposed cradle of human evolution; Africa. An Africa true to their own world view; zero White influence, intervention or presence of any kind. Modern debates would not exist because all of them would be absolutely meaningless in such a world.
Even those who are motivated by purely selfish aims and have zero loyalty to their own kind ought to see that it is in their own best interest to share such an all important concern. Once the White race is extinct, everything it created will go with it and there is no going back. Those who deny the legacy, intellectual property rights and worldy contributions of the race which made Western Civilization possible do so only at their own peril.
Even if they doubt the overwhelming evidence why would they take such an incredibly reckless risk? Do they not ask themselves "What if I am wrong?" If they are wrong and their posterity find themselves stuck in an endless series of progressively more ignorant and primitive dark ages and Zerzan's utopian vision of "Future Primitive" proves to be a dystopian nightmare as most utopian visions do in actual practice they will have lost everything; everyone will lose, and it will be too late to change their vote.
If we are wrong and what our opposition says is true [that race is nothing but skin color and were all the same and human life and progress is determined by class, wealth, environment, etc] will choosing our proposed solution [separation along racial lines -- NOT genocide which is actually what our opposition promotes] end in nearly so catastrophic long term consequences as their proposed solution would if they are in fact wrong?
No, the worst that would happen [assuming environmental determinism is right and all forms of genetic determinism or heredity wrong] would be that without our help [because we separated from them] the other races and nations would take a little longer to achieve our level of human progress or civilization and would necessarily go through more pain, more trials and tribulations than they would with the help of an already advanced culture and civilization.
Our opposition however, alarmists that they are, scream bloody murder because they refuse to accept that we say what we really mean and mean what we actually say. They insist that when we say racial separatism and self-determination we really mean race-war, hate-crime, mass-murder and genocide. Is this what they mean by establishing a sane and rational public dialog for reconciliation and establishing peace between different creeds, colors, nations, peoples?
If so then they are nothing but liars and hypocrites and anyone who would be party to that do not deserve to enjoy the protections, comforts or advantages of the civilized environment our ancestors created. They deserve to live in a world in which their own views are brought to their ultimate conclusion and they can experience first hand a world ruled not by Whites but rather one ruled by the Hobbesian reality behind Rousseau's "noble savage." They deserve to live where they insist all human life originated, the supposed cradle of human evolution; Africa. An Africa true to their own world view; zero White influence, intervention or presence of any kind. Modern debates would not exist because all of them would be absolutely meaningless in such a world.
The Future is Imperium; The Future is Now; Who Will Be Master Of This Destiny?
Insights from "Revolution from the Middle" by Samuel Francis
After The Republic
Just because it looks like a Republic and quacks like a Republic doesn't mean it's really a Republic. In ancient Rome, after Julius and Augustus Caesar got through with the civil wars, proscriptions, and purges that spelled the death of the old Roman nobility, the state still looked and quacked like the Republic it had been in the days of Cincinnatus and Cato the Elder.
But everyone knew it wasn't so, that a century of demagogues and dictators had ruptured the republican duck, that the Caesars had finally polished off the reality of republican government and set up their own sweet little autocracy. "Despotism, enthroned at Rome," wrote historian Ronald Syme in The Roman Revolution, "was arrayed in robes torn from the corpse of the Republic."
So it is today in the United States. The Constitution still exists and remains a standing topic of Fourth of July oratory. We still have elections and even the vestiges of that aristocratic balance wheel, the electoral college. We still have republican (but, even today, not really democratic) representation in the Senate.
But despite the persistence of these republican forms, the reality is quite different -- a mass democracy in which elected officials are more and more irrelevant and corrupt as their powers and duties are usurped by bureaucratic elites that cannot be removed. Despotism, masked in republican costume, is not yet enthroned, but already it whispers in the ears of those who sit in the consular chairs of the leviathan state.
Why did the American Republic die, and why can't it be restored? The generation of Americans at the time the Constitution was written was immersed in republican thought and principles, and the Framers consistantly tried to establish a republic that could avoid the anarchy, demagoguery, and tyranny to which most previous republics -- in Greece, Rome, Renaissance Italy, Holland, and England -- had succumbed. But, if the republic they established is in fact moribund, either they made a mistake or else something has happened in the last 200 years that they never anticipated.
Writing on the different schools of republican thought that permeated the United States in its infancy, historian Forrest McDonald notes that virtually all of them shared a common set of beliefs. "The vital -- that is life-giving -- principle of republics was public virtue," a term that rang rather differently from its resonance in modern ears.
...by the end of the nineteenth century, the American Republic remained intact, as did the social independence and public virtue on which it rested. Prior to World War I, writes Robert Nisbet, main contact most Americans had with the federal government was at the Post Office, and until the bonds of industrial and technological conglomeration were forged, Americans -- or at least the middle-class core of American civilization -- retained the social, economic, cultural, and political independence that made a republic possible.
Today this is not the case. Twentieth-century technology and organization -- in Big Government, Big Business, and Big Culture -- have increased far beyond the compact scale on which republican independence is possible and much further than even the dynastic states of the ancien regime could comprehend. The American middle class today is dependent on corporations, unions, universities, and the national state itself for its income, and it is income -- not an ethic or culture such as the nineteenth century bourgeois middle class possessed -- that defines the contemporary middle class.
The mega-state and its tentacles touch and twist at every joint of our lives, and their operations are directed by permanent and largely invisible bureaucratic and managerial elites, not primarily by officeholders or independent property owners. Those who hold office spend much of their time trying to shovel federal fodder into their constituents' troughs. Mass media and mass cultural organizations in education and religion bind virtually all Americans into the same vast audience, poked and prodded by the same images, ideas, information, and misinformation to emit the same mental and emotional responses.
At the end of the twentieth century, Americans have been absorbed within and become dependent on massive organizations and techonologies that are far too large, too complex, and too distant for most of us to control or even to influence. Under that kind of dependency, the social and moral disciplines that make personal and republican self-government possible wither away.
Hence, the rise of mass organizations and the elites that run them and our own dependence on them have paralleled the explosion of social breakdowns -- crime, suicides, drug use, sexual excess and deviation, the brutalization of women and children, the collapse of families and communities, the pursuit of hedonism and immediate gratification, the glorification of the sick, the weak, and the weird.
Mass society breeds dependency; dependency breeds corruption; and corruption breeds slavery. When indpendence and public virtue decline too far, the republic dies, even though despots may robe themselves in its garments.
Once the sociology of liberty is destroyed, it cannot be restored. Once the institutions and habits of independent discipline have withered, they do not naturally blossom again. Most Americans today are content with the mega-state, the cult of consumption that bureaucratized economy encourages, and the titillations, fantasies, and diversions of the mass media. The only discontent most of us have with the mega-state is when we have to pay for somebody else to get more from it -- in welfare, services, subsidies, tax breaks -- than we get.
Democratic politics in the leviathan state is never about dismantling or reducing leviathan but always about forcing somebody else to pay for what we want from it. A mass democracy of interest groups, lobbies, ideological movements, and opinion clusters replaces the "unremitting devotion to the weal of the public's corporate self" that animated classical republicans, and the engorgement of leviathan is accelerated by the twin engines of a bureaucratic elite intent on enlarging its own power and the mass voting blocs it feeds, just as eighteenth-century demagogues fed their mobs. Unlike a republic, mass democracy doesn't restrain power; democracy unleashes power.
Except for a few right-wing eggheads, no one seriously contemplates restoring the republic; no one seriously wants to because no one has any material interest in it. Hence the republic will not be restored.
Those few who remain attached to republicanism thus find themselves in the position of republican theorists like the Roman historian Tacitus and Nicolo Machiavelli, both of whom had seen their republics gurgle down the drain-pipes of history. Both of them understood that republican liberty is not something you get by just wishing for it or believing in it, that in the absence of the public virtue on which repubilcanism is grounded, you cannot have liberty.
...Machiavelli, who was imprisoned and tortured by the gangsters who took over Florence after the fall of its republic... had a more immediate grasp of what happens when a republic is corrupt and dying.
At that point, he wrote, "it becomes necessary to resort to extraordinary measures, such as violence and arms, and above all things to make one's self the absolute master of the state, so as to be able to dispose of it at will." Machiavelli understood that this kind of authoritarian rule was not a real solution or a restoration of liberty but simply the natural consequence of corruption; "for men whose turbulence could not be controlled by the simple force of law can be controlled in a measure by an almost regal power."
The consolidation of political, economic, and cultural power on just such a regal scale has in fact largely occurred in the United States already. The question that the dying Republic yields, therefore, is not whether the Republic will be restored but rather how those Middle Americans who were the nucleus of the American Republic, who retain the vestiges of public virtue, and who now find themselves the victims of the new imperium can displace the elite that now prevails. The issue, in other words, is: Who, in the wrecked vessel of the American Republic, is to be master? [Article written by Samuel Francis first published in Chronicles magazine -- August, 1991; Republished among a collection of articles written by Samuel Francis in the book Revolution From The Middle, publisher Middle American Press, 1997]
After The Republic
Just because it looks like a Republic and quacks like a Republic doesn't mean it's really a Republic. In ancient Rome, after Julius and Augustus Caesar got through with the civil wars, proscriptions, and purges that spelled the death of the old Roman nobility, the state still looked and quacked like the Republic it had been in the days of Cincinnatus and Cato the Elder.
But everyone knew it wasn't so, that a century of demagogues and dictators had ruptured the republican duck, that the Caesars had finally polished off the reality of republican government and set up their own sweet little autocracy. "Despotism, enthroned at Rome," wrote historian Ronald Syme in The Roman Revolution, "was arrayed in robes torn from the corpse of the Republic."
So it is today in the United States. The Constitution still exists and remains a standing topic of Fourth of July oratory. We still have elections and even the vestiges of that aristocratic balance wheel, the electoral college. We still have republican (but, even today, not really democratic) representation in the Senate.
But despite the persistence of these republican forms, the reality is quite different -- a mass democracy in which elected officials are more and more irrelevant and corrupt as their powers and duties are usurped by bureaucratic elites that cannot be removed. Despotism, masked in republican costume, is not yet enthroned, but already it whispers in the ears of those who sit in the consular chairs of the leviathan state.
Why did the American Republic die, and why can't it be restored? The generation of Americans at the time the Constitution was written was immersed in republican thought and principles, and the Framers consistantly tried to establish a republic that could avoid the anarchy, demagoguery, and tyranny to which most previous republics -- in Greece, Rome, Renaissance Italy, Holland, and England -- had succumbed. But, if the republic they established is in fact moribund, either they made a mistake or else something has happened in the last 200 years that they never anticipated.
Writing on the different schools of republican thought that permeated the United States in its infancy, historian Forrest McDonald notes that virtually all of them shared a common set of beliefs. "The vital -- that is life-giving -- principle of republics was public virtue," a term that rang rather differently from its resonance in modern ears.
Not coincidentally, public, like virtue, derives from Latin roots signifying manhood: "the public" included only independent adult males. Public virtue entailed firmness, courage, endurance, industry, frugal living, strength, and above all, unremitting devotion to the weal of the public's corporate self, the community of virtuous men. It was at once individualistic and communal: individualistic in that no member of the public could be dependent upon any other and still be reckoned a member of the public; communal in that every man gave himself totally to the good of the public as a whole. If public virtue declined, the republic declined, and if it declined too far, the republic died.
...by the end of the nineteenth century, the American Republic remained intact, as did the social independence and public virtue on which it rested. Prior to World War I, writes Robert Nisbet, main contact most Americans had with the federal government was at the Post Office, and until the bonds of industrial and technological conglomeration were forged, Americans -- or at least the middle-class core of American civilization -- retained the social, economic, cultural, and political independence that made a republic possible.
Today this is not the case. Twentieth-century technology and organization -- in Big Government, Big Business, and Big Culture -- have increased far beyond the compact scale on which republican independence is possible and much further than even the dynastic states of the ancien regime could comprehend. The American middle class today is dependent on corporations, unions, universities, and the national state itself for its income, and it is income -- not an ethic or culture such as the nineteenth century bourgeois middle class possessed -- that defines the contemporary middle class.
The mega-state and its tentacles touch and twist at every joint of our lives, and their operations are directed by permanent and largely invisible bureaucratic and managerial elites, not primarily by officeholders or independent property owners. Those who hold office spend much of their time trying to shovel federal fodder into their constituents' troughs. Mass media and mass cultural organizations in education and religion bind virtually all Americans into the same vast audience, poked and prodded by the same images, ideas, information, and misinformation to emit the same mental and emotional responses.
At the end of the twentieth century, Americans have been absorbed within and become dependent on massive organizations and techonologies that are far too large, too complex, and too distant for most of us to control or even to influence. Under that kind of dependency, the social and moral disciplines that make personal and republican self-government possible wither away.
Hence, the rise of mass organizations and the elites that run them and our own dependence on them have paralleled the explosion of social breakdowns -- crime, suicides, drug use, sexual excess and deviation, the brutalization of women and children, the collapse of families and communities, the pursuit of hedonism and immediate gratification, the glorification of the sick, the weak, and the weird.
Mass society breeds dependency; dependency breeds corruption; and corruption breeds slavery. When indpendence and public virtue decline too far, the republic dies, even though despots may robe themselves in its garments.
Once the sociology of liberty is destroyed, it cannot be restored. Once the institutions and habits of independent discipline have withered, they do not naturally blossom again. Most Americans today are content with the mega-state, the cult of consumption that bureaucratized economy encourages, and the titillations, fantasies, and diversions of the mass media. The only discontent most of us have with the mega-state is when we have to pay for somebody else to get more from it -- in welfare, services, subsidies, tax breaks -- than we get.
Democratic politics in the leviathan state is never about dismantling or reducing leviathan but always about forcing somebody else to pay for what we want from it. A mass democracy of interest groups, lobbies, ideological movements, and opinion clusters replaces the "unremitting devotion to the weal of the public's corporate self" that animated classical republicans, and the engorgement of leviathan is accelerated by the twin engines of a bureaucratic elite intent on enlarging its own power and the mass voting blocs it feeds, just as eighteenth-century demagogues fed their mobs. Unlike a republic, mass democracy doesn't restrain power; democracy unleashes power.
Except for a few right-wing eggheads, no one seriously contemplates restoring the republic; no one seriously wants to because no one has any material interest in it. Hence the republic will not be restored.
Those few who remain attached to republicanism thus find themselves in the position of republican theorists like the Roman historian Tacitus and Nicolo Machiavelli, both of whom had seen their republics gurgle down the drain-pipes of history. Both of them understood that republican liberty is not something you get by just wishing for it or believing in it, that in the absence of the public virtue on which repubilcanism is grounded, you cannot have liberty.
...Machiavelli, who was imprisoned and tortured by the gangsters who took over Florence after the fall of its republic... had a more immediate grasp of what happens when a republic is corrupt and dying.
At that point, he wrote, "it becomes necessary to resort to extraordinary measures, such as violence and arms, and above all things to make one's self the absolute master of the state, so as to be able to dispose of it at will." Machiavelli understood that this kind of authoritarian rule was not a real solution or a restoration of liberty but simply the natural consequence of corruption; "for men whose turbulence could not be controlled by the simple force of law can be controlled in a measure by an almost regal power."
The consolidation of political, economic, and cultural power on just such a regal scale has in fact largely occurred in the United States already. The question that the dying Republic yields, therefore, is not whether the Republic will be restored but rather how those Middle Americans who were the nucleus of the American Republic, who retain the vestiges of public virtue, and who now find themselves the victims of the new imperium can displace the elite that now prevails. The issue, in other words, is: Who, in the wrecked vessel of the American Republic, is to be master? [Article written by Samuel Francis first published in Chronicles magazine -- August, 1991; Republished among a collection of articles written by Samuel Francis in the book Revolution From The Middle, publisher Middle American Press, 1997]
Monday, February 26, 2007
Toward A Better Understanding of Modern Political Theory
The State By Michael Walker
German Socialism as an Alternative to Marxism
Democracy we Presume?
The Faye-Benoist debate on Multiculturalism
Medieval Sourcebook:
Nicolo Machiavelli (1469-1527):
The Prince
German Socialism as an Alternative to Marxism
Democracy we Presume?
The Faye-Benoist debate on Multiculturalism
Medieval Sourcebook:
Nicolo Machiavelli (1469-1527):
The Prince
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Separated Place by the blood of Jesus, which He consecrated for us, 