L&G-

Bureaucrats want power. They will do whatever they need to do to get it (e.g., agree, disagree, mock, applaud, etc.) Don't be fooled by politicians that tell you they will save you from yourselves. We are in this place here, now together. There are things we must do, together. Let's get on w/ it. Here is a quote from Bill Bonner's Daily Reckoning that speaks well to the situation:

We are in the Age of Mammon.

If the pollsters told the major parties they could win the White House by
renouncing the Constitution, the Bible, and the Theory of
Evolution...they'd do it immediately.

L&G-

I found this article considerably amusing. According to a survey conducted by the federal Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, reports of marijuana and other illicit drug use among the deconstructionist generation* (ages 60-42) has risen by an average of over 60% during the four year period ('02-'05)**. Meanwhile, American teens' (age 12-17) drug use has declined by an average of [a shade under] 15% in the same time frame. The author, Donna Leinwand of USA Today states,

++++++++++++++++++++++++++

L&G-

I want you to understand the logic of imperialism (http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/000/318qpvmc.asp?pg=1) so that it will become apparent what most of the political spectrum is fainthearted about regarding certain tendencies of the far right. I don't agree that America should be expansionist and I stated this very plainly in my letter "State of the Union", (Feb '06). What I will say is that the aim of modern [Euro/American] imperialism is to change the world, no doubt, in a Pareto Efficient way and I believe that mission to be an honorable one. However, I find the perspective of imperialists, on the whole, to be rather quixotic. The earth is filled with craven and shadowy figures. We cannot transform every life as God has ordained in principle, what should be given the case of man's insatiable appetite for destruction. We have neither the time nor the resources. There simply is not enough heroes (and heroines) to do the job properly; fear predominates and the populace is held taught by intimidation. However, what I can say is that the job of Christian imperialism - i.e., the noble pursuit to change the world for Christ starts and ends at home.

The army and the marines and the air force and the navy - the gunships and the paratroopers and the seals and the special forces and the allied operatives have been fighting a proxy battle against evil, but now the time is drawing near to a close and the battle is coming home. After the blitzkrieg of 9/11, Muslims are attempting to force their way into our nation and our way of life in order to usurp the freedom and prosperity and the peace we have come to know and love. Their next move is to ascertain easier immigration policies and cultural autonomy via 'civil rights protected class status'. If you are convinced the war in Iraq was an insidious evil of Republican leadership, then you will soon find out and acknowledge that there are two main differences between the right and left in responding to [foreign aggression]. The right, when attacked, will fight back and put up barriers. The left, when attacked, will appease and make compromise.

What does God command his covenant people regarding foreign policy? Simple: do not compromise - i.e., hustle/prostitute in the foreign relations game to secure a [false] peace. It is insidious and these [heathen/pagan] nations will take advantage of negotiations' loopholes to corrupt and destroy a noble society. Now here we are at the threshold of peace/prosperity and famine/disaster... Our choices from this point onward will have dramatic consequences. To capture, I think, the moment with a quote: "Fearing the unknown is worse than knowing the truth, no matter how bad," (WSJ, October 1929).

L&G-

My interpretation is: the liberal mafia has marked this guy for a hit job. They want to send the [default, in this case, racial] message that working for Republicans is a no no.


The Devil's three pronged strategy:

1. Negotiation
2. Incrimination
3. Isolation

1. Negotiation: he says, "Hey, come on out here and talk to me!" Satan wants to get a person of integrity wrapped up in a needless conversation and bring that person to the table of compromise. Then comes 2. Incrimination: where he will accuse you of only seeking to enrich yourself, etc. Lastly, 3. Isolation: to get you by yourself where he can break you down (divide and conquer). We have seen this tactic used also for emasculating the Iraq war effort: first came the UN Negotiation dally-strategy followed by the No Weapons Incrimination and finally attacking the Bush-Blair relationship. It's patented.

L&G-

Why do people call themselves and why do journalists refer to people by hyphenated identities that list other geographies/nationalities first before America - i.e., 'African-American' and 'Hispanic-American' etc.? Personally, I see that as a sign of limited fealty to the state. In turn, this begs the question, "Can we trust these people in positions of responsibility where American interests-at-large are at stake?"

L&G-

Democratic challengers for the national political heavyweight title (POTUS) want to 'back in' to Communism by offering Socialized Medicine to illegal immigrants, among others, in America which will have more than a few adverse implications, not least of which include:

1. Lowering the quality of care
2. Increasing the wait time through overcrowding the system (e.g., regular doctor visits, emergency room visits)
2. Increasing the cost burden to taxpayers
3. Decreasing the competitiveness in industry which exacerbates problems one through three plus adds an additional burden of reducing innovation in pharmaceuticals (which will reduce the number of and diversity in new life-saving and salubrious drugs).

Essentially, it's just an inroad to accommodation and the destruction of the American way of life. To be sure, Socialism is nothing more than political correctness, which is the decisive anti-Christian agenda of the modern world. Tell me something, what about diversity in the 3rd World? How come there are mainly Asians in Asia? I don't see a richness of diversity which includes many of other types of peoples there that I can see. How come there are mostly Indians in India? And how come there are mostly, if not all, Arabs/Persians/Egyptians in the Middle-East? How come there is not much diversity in Africa except for the missionaries and apartheid in South Africa? How come there is not very much diversity anywhere except in the civilized world? And how come it's okay for people in or descendant of the 3rd World to associate amongst themselves, however, it becomes a crime of political correctness when white people associate [primarily] with other white people? I'll tell you, it's anti-Christian rhetoric draped in incendiary race demagoguery propagated by anti-Christian Socialists. If people were really concerned with 'diversity' rather than just dividing and conquering Christians, there would be a thrust to diversify the whole world, not just the civilized, Christian, developed world.

L&G-

I don't exactly know how to broach the topic, but do you notice how the most irascible characters in our, being possessive of white Christians, respective societies across the globe are also the poorest, most destitute and foul creatures? Consider the fact that God has established certain natural laws that people must abide by in order to receive blessing. Not least of which is the Golden Rule, which is infinitely subtle, ergo having manifold interpretations. One evaluation of the Golden Rule is: "You must give in order to receive." Think about this. If everyone put in their share and took only their share, then there would be enough to go around. Furthermore, if some put in more than they gave (and no one took more than they put in), there would be excess. However, in the case of people not putting in as much as they are taking out, we have the phenomenon of scarcity. Niggardly people make for niggardly resources. And the method for solving the problem of scarcity is not to take away from the generous and give to the niggardly, but to teach the niggardly to be generous. Then economics becomes a matter of supply and demand and, in all fairness, we can make sure that people in need don't go without.

God said in the Old Testament to his covenant nation, Israel, "There should be no poor among you." That was not to establish poverty as some type of crime, rather to establish the fact that when blessings flow, they should be shared with others so that, upon receiving a share of those resources, the kingliness of God would be revealed and people would come to trust almighty God. It is all for his glory and nothing else. God is practical, notwithstanding his divine order which is impossible for imperfect beings to consummately abide in. Accordingly, God has made accommodation for the regular distribution* of peoples with different abilities of acquiring property combined with unforeseen and natural occurrences in which some people fall into [tough circumstances]. In terms of wealth, God says that only a few men** on earth will ever be rich (a relative term). God says that, in terms of property, you reap what you sew. That's basically the final word. Some evil men become rich via corruption and bribery, but these people will pay the price for their deceit and it is not a human, rather God's prerogative to take vengeance. The last commandment in the Decalogue is 'thou shalt not covet'. God says that for a reason; it is a matter of social cohesiveness and providing the greatest good for the greatest number. If people are out on a mission to usurp every private gain from his neighbor, a violent society will ensue and any government based on these principles will collapse just as quickly as it rose (as in the case of a Communist rebellion).



*regular distribution. bell curve; check your stats text
** men. species, not gender

Ladies and Gentlemen:

 

How easily people forget that America is a Republic founded upon the virtues of self-restraint embodied in the Decalogue. That we are a free society, yet that freedom must be defended from, among other things, the ravages of vice c_um degeneration of social values. Benjamin Rush stated, “The temple of tyranny has two doors; we bolted one of them by proper restraints, but we left the other open by neglecting to guard against the effects of our own ignorance and licentiousness”. What he means is that monarchy or despotism (government by one through a system of rules or via individual will and caprice, respectively) leads to tyranny. Consequently, by establishing a Republic of, for and by the people, we have avoided [tyranny] on one account. However, the other 'door' to tyranny is rampant licentiousness, or irresponsibility with our rights.

I'd like to proffer that it is not 'us', being white Christians, who are the direct cause of licentiousness and irresponsibility in modern America, rather pagan influence-at-large. We have to put that in check if we want to keep our freedom. Justice is the end of government. Indeed, it is the end of civil-society. If people were angels, we wouldn't need government. If the government were run by angels, we would need the division of powers, checks and balances, etc. We are humans prone to sin and there is a certain amount of accountability we need to take for that. Let's consider a couple of simple questions for context - namely: "Why is the '3rd World' uncivilized? And what makes it so?" The latter I've covered already - it is a lack of moral restraint, ergo depravity which leads to destitution. To the former question, some people aver that inputs (e.g., resources or land or climate) are the cause of development or lack thereof. Humbug. The uncivilized world is so because of the people who live there.

A lack of responsibility with freedom will always lead to anarchy. And in order for justice to be obtained (in a civil society or otherwise), people cannot get away with crimes; they must be punished and deterred, or else government is in the business of creating victims. So, if people are irresponsible with freedom (e.g., if they lack self-restraint and are inclined toward anti-social, anarchical behavior), they will lose it. The government, in order to impose justice in the face of licentiousness, will be forced to tighten down the restraints upon society. If they did not strengthen their mechanism to punish/deter crimes by making rule more draconian, people would be able to finagle the administration [of justice] by impeaching the credibility of courts [of public opinion and of law] via hearsay evidence - e.g., O.J. Simpson citing 'racism' to get away with murder. And, in turn, the artful and designing would live in relative liberty at the expense of those who hold themselves accountable to the rule of law (as in the case of civil society). This, in turn, would create a double-standard in which one class is of debauchees while another is bearing the grudge of responsibility for upholding order. And that is a concept we refer to in economics called 'free riding'.

Free riding creates victims (i.e., those who bear the burden to supporting others who don't 'pull their own weight', as it were). That being said, no government can victimize its people forever without facing an insurrection of some sort. I think I've previously mentioned that bureaucrats want power and they will do whatever is in their power to keep it, including ratcheting down pressure on civil society to maintain order. It is well known that people of warmer climes have more dissolute character than people from cooler climes. In effect, the 'inclusion' of more dissolute characters into a body politic that is otherwise responsible creates a 'ratcheting down' effect on liberty. 'Diversity' subsidizes freedom for the less morally restrained and it costs those who are more inclined toward self-restraint. "Unfair discrimination" is one thing, but let's have a little discernment, shall we? People are different. We don't all act the same, walk the same, talk the same; we don’t all have the same behaviors or standards for morality. We don't all believe the same things or hold ourselves to the same levels of accountability (standards are relative). Let's wake up and realize who and what we're dealing with, here. If we don't accept the truth staring us in the face, our beloved Republic will be gone.

L&G-

If you will open your eyes to notice, it will become apparent that society has been divided into two classes and one class is burdened with the obligation of providing, hamstrung, while the other is walking freely, strutting even, accepting the entitlements of said class with impunity. And the obligation is rendered such through the ideology that the class due for entitlements is worthy based on what the other class has made. It is theft. What the class of entitlement sets to do is to make sure that it is not receiving less than its 'fair share' of what the burdened class is producing. This produces a phenomenon of resistance such that the entitlement class is opposed to whatever the burdened class does the former counteracting and besieging the latter. The entitlement class is more concerned with political power rather than solving problems or making social progress.

In fact, there is a euphemism called 'social progress' when the entitlement class avers, "Had enough?", which is intended to suggest oppression and the overcoming of adversity. The euphemism of 'social progress' symbolizes the advancement of special interests at the expense of the body-politic at large. When the entitled class bellows for 'diversity' and 'equality' they are keeping one eye peeled at all times on the burdened class, making sure there are no differences in the allotments between [the burdened] and themselves. If such perception of inequality (or relative deprivation) arises, the entitled class goes on attack to usurp that which has arisen and they split up the spoils based on a cronyist structure (i.e., based on political favors).

There is a saying that laziness and [the ruthless hand of] ignorance lie in the same bed. The reason why the '3rd World' remains poor is because of the ideology that if anyone has gained something, that person should be punished (for having more) and the proceeds should be divvied up, just as I have explained. This disenfranchises entrepreneurship and disincentivizes innovation because, when people cannot keep what they earn and they are duly punished for their gains, what is the incentive to work toward these ends? The answer is that there is no incentive and this is nothing but Satan's cunning ruse to keep people unhappy and at each others' throats. God set up a blueprint for morality in the OT with outward laws - more or less embodied in the Decalogue. Jesus came to inform a large part of the [law's intent] as well as to fulfill the rest.

God sets up boundaries in order to give people their portion, which is property [rights], ergo wealth. God's portion is his people.
God set up morality to basically restrain people from doing things which their evil nature sets them toward. It is this [virtuous] self-restraint that forms the basis of all civil society. That is why, in the civilized world, people have [human] rights and in the barbaric 'developing world' people are treated inconsequentially, as human chattel - esp. women. There are no boundaries among the pagans because people aren't held back by the same sympathies and the same humanity we feel when our hearts are circumcised by God. The American Republic is founded upon principles of Republicanism, or the idea that each individual, in seeking his/her own best interests within the confines of civil law, will advance the interests of the public good. And that, within the confines of the law, each man* should be free to seek his own ends (i.e., job, family, hobbies, etc.).

People, I think, tend to have the notion that the law can give them power. That is wrong; the law cannot give, it can only take away. When people are free under the law, it represents a lack of restraint. Now I mentioned that when people are given 'special liberties', the rest of the body politic has to pay for it because in God's economy, there is no free lunch. Let me use an example to explain what I mean. Consider an airplane, e.g., Southwest Airlines which has the same [coach] seating for everyone with a certain number of seats on the plane and each seat has the same amount of leg room. In order to give one person more legroom (and keep the same number of seats on the plane), you would have to take away the leg room of the others on the plane. If you were going to be 'just' regarding the new distribution, you would have to take away an equal amount of leg room from each of the remaining passengers, or distribute it equally. On the other hand, if more than one person were to require more legroom, you would have to consequently take away the leg room of each of the rest of the passengers, equally, as it were. The only way to get more legroom [for special individuals] is to take away the legroom of the remaining passengers, or, to remove seats.

The law cannot make people more free than no law can (e.g., in a tribal society without government), it can only restrain some less and others more. I wrote an email about police that put a man in handcuffs "...for [his own] safety and for [the policemen's] safety." This suggests that safety lies in restraint. If we can restrain the people who are threatening to us, or those who could pose a threat to society, then we can be more assured about our own safety. Now the ideal of 'protected classes' receiving liberties is such that, the aforementioned are unrestrained while whomever remains [unprotected] is restrained**. The converse, applying the same principle, would be giving everyone 'equal' rights, but taking away the rights of some for the sake of making others safer. The idea that 'protected classes' need more liberty is rooted in the notion that the [unprotected] pose a threat to society. God says that the fate of wild beasts is only to be: 'caught and killed'. Do you know why that is? The rationale is that wild beasts are unpredictable and pose a risk to society; they must be subdued and eliminated.


*man. species, not gender
**restrained...unrestrained. relatively speaking

L&G-

I just wanted to write a quick note on something that has been simmering in my mind for quite some time. I hear a lot of talk in general from political leaders on the right (such as pastors and bureaucrats) that there is an agenda in America that seeks to defy Christianity and that the worldview of people from this agenda is of moral relativism - i.e., anything can be considered 'truth' as long as [a majority of] people believe it. And this affronts God's absolute sovereignty. It is true that there is an agenda that seeks to undermine God and our biblical/literate tradition in the civilized world, but it is not necessarily one group of people seeking to 'relativize' the truth, as it were. There is no single culprit (e.g., homosexuals) seeking to destroy the foundations for God's perfect order and there is no single culprit seeking to wash away the sanctuary created for God on earth (i.e., the American dream). It is true that America was born, largely of Protestants seeking freedom from religious persecution (e.g., being jailed for insurrection in England, being crucified as well as burnt on stakes in Spain) in Europe where freedom of speech and the right to gather peacefully as well as freedom of the press were curtailed.

This nation is great not due to compromising its values and its ethics but from staying true to its traditions and it has been blessed, through faith, in obedience to God. We are ascendant and set apart to glorify the name of Christ; we are as a city upon a hill for all to see - a holy example bright and shining for the world to acknowledge the works of his hands. I told you these emails were going to start getting steeped in Christianity - it is the only way for us to solve our problems. We are being encroached upon by the dreaded hand of private violence and the even more to be dreaded hand of legal oppression, not due to the worldviews of homosexuals or any specific target demographic, but due to our politics of accommodation. There is a saying that, "If you give Satan an inch, he'll be a ruler!" There is no specific demographic that threatens our nation's prosperity; rather it is accommodative politics which encroaches upon our liberties.

Let me explain something: civil society is based upon the rule of law and we, as citizens, are each engaged in a social contract of mutual shared sacrifice. We are limited in what we can do to one another by the law - that is what 'liberty' is. If you are running on a mountain pass and you see a hungry predator that wants to hunt you, it's not likely that screaming, "Stop - in the name of the law; I am protected by my human rights liberties!" is going to have any affect on that animals' behaviour. If it wants to eat you and if you are less than capable of defending yourself from an attack (and no act of providence protects you), then you will surely be eaten. In the case of civil society, however, people honor the power of the written word and objective standards govern our social mechanics (e.g., people stop at red lights in traffic; abate their respective inclinations toward murder, theft, etc.). When people invoke the sweet name of 'liberty', consider the cost and God's economy where there is no free lunch. People use [human] 'rights' struggles propaganda to take advantage of each other.

If one specific demographic group is to have [special] 'liberties', then another [specific] demographic group (or the remainder thereof) will have to pay for those liberties. When someone 'takes their liberties' with another person, that is a form of rape, murder, theft - it is really just one person taking advantage of another. Earlier I said that there is no specific demographic group that seeks to undermine God's biblical tradition, necessarily. And furthermore, it is not simply a will of one specific group that asserts a [morally relative] worldview, therefore, the moral/political leaders of America need to focus more broadly, in my opinion, on issues of accommodation rather than targeting specific groups as culprits in America's [ever-increasing] moral failings and ineptitude to defend itself from [foreign/domestic invasion], bankruptcy ( e.g. top-heavy entitlements such as pensions for being an American citizen analogous to the Airlines, all of whom are directly or indirectly subsidized by American citizens' tax dollars via Federal assistance and most of whom are nevertheless going bankrupt) and the like. Essentially, the issues we face are corporative - once people have citizenship (given they've reached the adult age of eighteen and are not convicted felons), they can vote and these enfranchised peoples have power to influence the direction of this society, as well as the way it functions.

Accomodative politics usurps American liberties because it takes away from those who are, as I've previously stated, hard-working and law-abiding - i.e., common people who love God and who love America and who love their families. Bureaucrats, merchant-elites, Hollywood media-elites, Manhattanite International Relations elites and the like, all gain power from having widespread influence. The bureaucrats pander to the widest constituencies possible in order to get the most votes. Merchants advertise in the most provocative manner and in the form that segregates populations into 'target demographics' to create the deepest possible penetration (for market share, brand loyalty, etc.). Hollywood media elites want the broadest appeal for sales, etc. And finally, the International Relations elites want power by association with world leaders for influence, etc. so their agenda is, as the aforementioned, accommodative.

Now the phenomenon of accommodation goes like this: once you give specific groups of people special status and accommodate them accordingly, you are importing trouble. People, unless they are a homogenous collective, bring with them various worldviews, perspectives, belief systems, et cetera, according to the normative traditions attending their respective nationalities*. Diverse perspectives and diverse intellectual thought can add to the creative genius of society and be very productive, if harnessed properly – i.e., if used toward moral ends. It's just as the proverbial encounter states: "Will [one] use power for good or for evil?" However, unrestrained 'diversity' is deviant and counterproductive because it subverts the common order and perverts the collective good (which can take many forms – e.g., economy, politics, military/police protection, culture, etc.).

Once you accommodate people by giving them special liberties, it takes [liberties] away from those who aren't special. And when people are given free reign to exercise liberties, they bring their culture and their traditions and their natural inclinations with them. So, essentially what occurs is we have many different nations in the United States of America that all have special privileges to, basically, act and believe in whatever manner they see fit. The universal rights to 'life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness' outlined in our frame of government include specific statutes declaring the ability [of every person] to speak out, gather peacefully, write and even criticize the government, among other things. These rights are good, but when combined with 'special privileges' for special demographic groups, we have an adverse affect which disallows those without special privileges to practice those same rights and enjoy those same liberties to the same extent (special status creates a supra-class and a sub-class partition with a concomitant order based on those status differences). In economic terms, the now underprivileged get 'crowded out', as it were. And with a loss of privileges comes a loss of moral and political status in society. When you gradually disenfranchise a specific class, you are, in effect, negating the traditions and the order of that specific class.

Back to the point I was making about accommodation: In the main, what we have here is an accommodation of specific people groups and their traditions at the expense of America's host society's liberties and, thereby, America's host society's traditions. So America is slipping into moral decrepitude due to the overindulgence of demographics that pull us away from God, the Bible, et cetera. By accommodating the will of pagans, as it were, we are allowing for the slippage, for lack of a better word, of our own morals, or own ethics, our own traditions, our own order, our own strength – which is God's will, God's traditions, Gods' order, God's ethics, God's morals and God's strength. To the extent we allow non-Christians to lead us astray, God will continue to let America fall into the pits of despair and hopelessness. However, upon a quickening and revival (i.e., enlightenment in the truth of our situation and responsibility to correct it), we can be surely turned around and set on solid ground.

*I say nationality specifically for the purpose of this argument which seeks to set [multiculturalism] in context of the multi-ethnic, multi-traditional realm in which we deal in our day-to-day realities in the civilized world.

Ladies and Gentlemen,

Let's talk just a minute, in keeping with the tradition of staying up-to-date on issues that I think are most important, let me quote you something out of the paper:

Oregon on Wednesday joined a growing list of U.S. states prepared to offer gay couples at least some of the benefits of marriage. Gov. Ted Kulongoski of Oregon has just signed legislation creating 'domestic partnerships' for gays and lesbians in the state starting Jan. 1. He also signed a bill that outlaws discrimination based on sexual orientation," (AP).


Now, right beside this European Socialist legislation was another article with the title, "Charges in 1965 Ala. Killing", which speaks of riots in 1965 during the tribal civil rights protests during which a black man was shot for pulling a policeman's gun out of its holster in the middle of a club-swinging melee. The officer (Fowler) contended he acted in self-defense after the gun was pulled out and this is a little known case but it has had major historical consequences, according to the Associated Press, it was a "killing that set in motion the... U.S. civil rights protests."

I juxtapose these two pieces of information not simply because they appear in the paper together, rather to point out the agenda of Liberal legislators. These people are searching for ways to increase taxes in order to save currency to their own pockets and while doing so, restricting the freedom of our most noble Americans for the benefit of the depraved in a thieves' camaraderie. Liars' unions serve those in cahoots by collaboratively discrediting others and usurping, among other things, freedom, land, honor, and money.

If you are a white Christian man, you should be afraid - very afraid of these people - i.e., unless you are wealthy and buffered from the torturous mob. They say that the middle class is responsible for political change in society because while the working class is uneducated and consumed with subsistence, ergo having neither the time nor the energy for addressing things political in nature, the rich, while educated, are not driven in such a manner due to their being consumed with ennui, ergo having a lack of motivation or reason, even, to address political change.

People elected the left in '06 to "stop the war" because the media told them to do so. Unfortunately, under the guise of promoting peace, myriad evils are manifesting themselves through corruption and bribery in the den of robbers we refer to as leadership. Why should people be afraid of radical particularist legislation? I'll tell you why: when laws are passed outlawing 'discrimination', your fate lies in the hands of those doing the interpretation. Depending on the liberality of such, you could find yourself in jail for standing up to someone's taunts and intimidation because they are included in a 'protected class' and refer to you as an 'oppressor/discriminator'.

L&G-

I want to give you a little course on international diplomacy. You need it in order to live in fascist, multicultural America. When people who aren't from Northwest Europe speak of "Christianity and/or Capitalism and/or Democracy" they are referring to white people. And if these people refer to white people, it correlates [perfectly]* with these institutions in their minds. I want to talk about where violence comes from. It is a philosophical argument but I need to lay the groundwork. Violence is endemic to ignorant people. There is a very strong positive correlation between one's level of education and one's respective inclination toward criminal behavior. Next, spirituality is necessary for forbearance. And every culture has a spiritual heritage. You can think of religion as a philosophy of coping, as it were. God, as I've previously stated, is neither religious nor political. That doesn't mean God condones Buddhist philosophy or Islamism, rather it simply means that you can't classify God according to a human conceptualization - since he is infinite, that would be essentially boxing him in. We don't want to pigeonhole God, do we?

Okay so you have the foundation of modern diplomacy. People do things according to what they believe; that is, what is in their hearts manifests itself into action. Violence comes from within. And I'll tell you the modern political correctness project seeks to limit what people can say, ergo think - which perpetuates violence. "Hate" crimes don't come from people who say things that are intentionally meant to be biased against certain other groups of peoples. "Hate" crimes come from people who hate other people. The French have a saying that to understand all is to forgive all. I can identify with that. Essentially, we need to understand where people are coming from in order to mitigate our differences. It doesn't mean that we need to compromise our values in order to appease people with whom we differ, rather we just need to understand where they're coming from in order to stand up to them. If you don't understand your opponent's argument, you don't understand your own.

That being said, let me familiarize you with a classic poem:


The White Man's Burden by Rudyard Kipling

Take up the White Man's burden--
Send forth the best ye breed--
Go bind your sons to exile
To serve your captives' need;
To wait in heavy harness,
On fluttered folk and wild--
Your new-caught, sullen peoples,
Half-devil and half-child.

Take up the White Man's burden--
In patience to abide,
To veil the threat of terror
And check the show of pride;
By open speech and simple,
An hundred times made plain
To seek another's profit,
And work another's gain.

Take up the White Man's burden--
The savage wars of peace--
Fill full the mouth of Famine
And bid the sickness cease;
And when your goal is nearest
The end for others sought,
Watch sloth and heathen Folly
Bring all your hopes to nought.

Take up the White Man's burden--
No tawdry rule of kings,
But toil of serf and sweeper--
The tale of common things.
The ports ye shall not enter,
The roads ye shall not tread,
Go mark them with your living,
And mark them with your dead.

Take up the White Man's burden--
And reap his old reward:
The blame of those ye better,
The hate of those ye guard--
The cry of hosts ye humour
(Ah, slowly!) toward the light:--
"Why brought he us from bondage,
Our loved Egyptian night?"

Take up the White Man's burden--'
Ye dare not stoop to less--
Nor call too loud on Freedom
To cloak your weariness;
By all ye cry or whisper,
By all ye leave or do,
The silent, sullen peoples
Shall weigh your gods and you.

Take up the White Man's burden--
Have done with childish days--
The lightly proffered laurel,
The easy, ungrudged praise.
Comes now, to search your manhood
Through all the thankless years
Cold, edged with dear-bought wisdom,
The judgment of your peers!


As I've previously stated, Capitalism and Christianity are considered 'White' institutions. That is not to say that every white person is a Christian and that every white person is a capitalist, simply that there is a correlation between [race/ethnography and institutions]. White people don't really think of institutions in terms of race. I'd even go as far as to say that white people don't categorize themselves by race. It is essentially a tool of those who wish to manipulate us [white people]. They (non-whites) point out differences in race to justify differences in behavior. Essentially, it is a way to 'explain away' injustice - e.g., cultural norms. Justice is a universal concept. Societies are formed to establish justice. That is why people even aggregate in the first place (i.e., to protect themselves from the injustice of savage, anarchical nature). E.g., if a lion kills your brother, is that fair? No, protect yourselves from lions by making weapons and setting up posts on the perimeter of camp. People herd for power and protection. I think I've said enough on that account.

Here is an excerpt from a poem called the "Black Man's Burden" which seeks to explain why capitalism is not suitable for [blacks] and why it is unfair to impose civilization on these people.


The Black Man's Burden by Edward Morel

"The African of the tropics is capable of tremendous labors. But he cannot accommodate himself to the European system of monotonous, uninterrupted labor, with its long and regular hours, involving, moreover, as it frequently does, severance from natural surroundings and nostalgia, the condition of melancholy resulting from separation from home, a malady to which the African is specially prone."


The second poem I've simply used as a metaphor to describe the [heart] of non-whites. The black civil rights struggle, etc. is a proxy for non-white [male] (including women's) empowerment in society over [white males]. The philosophical underpinnings of a welfare statist agenda (e.g., collectivism to help the less educationally, morally, pecuniarily developed at the expense of individual gain) is a fundamentally contradistinct notion opposing an individualist [civil rights] curriculum. That is why America is so divided against itself. Earlier in another message I said that enfranchisement of dependents polarizes the political process. This is so because, essentially, the new particularist collectivism makes dependents out of [the 'protected classes'] while simultaneously rendering said classes independent of [accountability to those on whom they are dependent]. In short, collectivism and particularism are mutually exclusive goals.


*perfect correlation. a generalization - perhaps hyperbole; logical extreme

When I go to church there is definitely something missing: the culture. People don't relax around one another because they're all busybodies managing their own respective images and judging each other. I've gone to black churches and white churches and although the former have wild sessions, I've spent my time there, personally, vainly combating rebarbative tensions. Ideally, I go to church to purge frustration from my life, not to exacerbate it. Congregations at white churches, on the other hand, from my experience, are lacking in the will to experience catharsis. People are inhibited in worship and very legalistic/hypocritical in their dealings with one another. I've been to a lot of places, and the best experience I know about is still at home, listening to sermons online and reading the good book alone. It's sad, really because God does not call us to become imprisoned by the culture we are in; he says we are to live in the world, but not of it. White culture today is tolerant to the point of a forced masochism such that people would rather inflict pain upon themselves than take the chance of offending someone else (of another culture). Self-restraint is a virtue, but when it inhibits the flow of Christ, we are only accommodating Satan's will to subdue and to subjugate us.

People think I'm so serious when I talk like this, but if you distill the message it comes out like: 'relax and don't put up with [ethnic or any other type of] chauvinism'. Nobody has a claim on my life but God. If someone wants to manage my emotions and my thoughts, let them come and experience almighty wrath. We are not to be constrained except within the holy confines of God's will. Even if the law of men contradicts God's law, we are to conform to the latter, regardless of the consequences. Sure, there may be trials, but ultimately God's covenant people will overcome because everything we do is for his glory. That is a serious message, but translated into this life and this time here and now, it means we should relax and let God take over. His will be done. People who pretend not to be serious are the ones who are most uptight because they have to maintain an image of [leisure], which can be a tough act to follow time and again.