All men are conceived in sin, and by nature children of wrath, incapable of saving good, prone to evil, dead in sin, and in bondage thereto, and without the regenerating grace of the Holy Spirit, they are neither able nor willing to return to God, to reform the depravity of their nature, or to dispose themselves to reformation.

If human beings were born morally neutral or inherently good, it is likely that we would observe at least some societies or individuals who naturally achieve a state of moral perfection. If there were no innate predisposition in favour of either vice or virtue, there would be extreme variety in individuals’ moral character, with a significant portion of people being exceptionally virtuous through their own merit, unless the conditions which direct one towards moral corruption existed in the same way for almost every single human to ever have existed. Given the unlikelihood of the latter scenario, the former is more plausible if we accept it’s original premise.

Universally across all history and cultures, every single human being without exception eventually violates their own moral standards and the standards of their community. Even the most morally virtuous people (excluding Jesus Christ), are often considered morally virtuous due to their repentance for their own wrongdoings; Abraham, Mother Teresa, or Ali ibn Abi Talib never claimed moral perfection, and nobody attributed them as being morally perfect.

Therefore, the idea that humans have no disposition towards sin fails to explain the nature and actions of humans across all civilisations since the Fall.

The most plausible explanation for the universal moral failure of human beings is through a universal cause rather than a purely situational cause. If we recognise the existence of at least one human being who was without vice (as Christians, Muslims, Jainists, Jews, and Buddhists do), the situational cause which always leads to sin must necessarily have not applied to them, despite their existence within the exact same setting and context as other sinful beings. The sinlessness of any given individual can only be explained if they lack the moral persuasion which predisposes them to commit sin.

The only hypothesis that explains why human beings universally commit wrongdoing is the hypothesis that there is a universal shared moral nature present in all human beings that directs us towards moral evil. Therefore, human nature itself is the cause of our sin.

Sin is perverted corruption of man’s most natural desires. Lust is a perversion of sex; gluttony is a perversion of nourishment; greed is a perversion of self-preservation; etc. The human mind is constantly under the influence of these cravings and their sinful counterparts. Thus, any attempt to choose God that originates within the human mind is under the influence of sin. God demands of all humans that they do not commit any sin whatsoever, which would mean that for the mind to become godly, it would necessarily abandon its sin. Yet because the human mind is infected with sin, there is no good reason to expect that it would ever choose God.

In the words of John Calvin, “Because of the bondage of sin by which the will is held bound, it cannot move toward good, much less apply itself thereto; for a movement of this sort is the beginning of conversion to God.”

Non-Calvinists will respond to this with the doctrine of prevenient grace, which states that God offers all humans a form of grace that they are free to reject, thus explaining how humans can choose God even if they are in a sinful and depraved nature. However, it fails to explain why, even if it is possible for the grace to be accepted, why anyone would. A mind that remains under the corrupting influence of sin can be offered the rivers of life flowing from the throne of God, but because it would demand an end to the sin that they are in servitude to, there is no good reason to assume that they would ever willingly accept it. All prevenient grace does is give the sinner a chance to know that the Good exists, but it does not fundamentally alter their disposition away from sin or give them any likelihood of desiring God on their own.

Scriptural Basis:

U: Unconditional Election

Election is the unchangeable purpose of God whereby, before the foundation of the world, out of the whole human race, which had fallen by its own fault out of its original integrity into sin and perdition, He has, according to the sovereign good pleasure of His will, out of mere grace, chosen in Christ to salvation a definite number of specific persons, neither better nor more worthy than others, but involved together with them in a common misery.

If man is incapable of willingly choosing God with his own corrupted will, then one of two scenarios is possible:

1. Every single person is damned without exception

2. The will of an uncorrupted being saves some individuals

Because the religion that this debate is operating under does not teach the first scenario, we can assume the latter. As Christians, we must say that the only being who is entirely uncorrupted through their own merit (rather than the merit of another uncorrupted being) is God. Therefore, you can only be saved if God chooses you to be saved. Furthermore, God is eternal and unchanging, and thus His choice to save certain individuals would not have been made at any specific point in time, it is one of His eternal attributes. Thus, God’s decision to save certain individuals existed before those individuals were born; in other words, they were predestined. Not only this, but God’s decision to withhold His saving grace is part of His unchanging nature.

However, Unconditional Election specifically teaches that God’s election of certain individuals is not based on any foreseen righteousness, as taught by Arminians, but on His sovereign and decretive will.

Because any virtue demonstrated by an individual with a totally depraved will must have derived their ability to perform said action from an independent and uncorrupted will, then the cause of their virtuous action is the uncorrupted will, not themselves. Thus, the virtue of the elect, specifically their ability to have salvific faith, is caused by an uncorrupted will external to themselves. The only uncorrupted will is God’s will. Consequently, if God elected people based on foreseen righteousness, then God’s election is based on something He Himself caused, thus making any human involvement in salvation an impossibility. Therefore, the predestination of the elect is not based on their foreseen righteousness, and Arminianism is false.

Scriptural Basis:

L: Limited Atonement

It is the gracious will and purpose of God the Father, that the quickening and saving efficacy of the most precious death of His Son should extend to all the elect, for bestowing upon them alone the gift of justifying faith, thereby to bring them infallibly to salvation: that is, it was the will of God, that Christ by the blood of the cross, whereby He confirmed the new covenant, should effectually redeem out of every people, tribe, nation, and language, all those, and those only, who were from eternity chosen to salvation and given to Him by the Father; that He should confer upon them faith, which together with all the other saving gifts of the Holy Spirit, He purchased for them by His death; should purge them from all sin, both original and actual, whether committed before or after believing; and having faithfully preserved them even to the end, should at last bring them free from every spot and blemish to the enjoyment of glory in His own presence forever.

Certainly the most controversial Calvinist doctrine (to the extent where many Calvinists, known as Amyraldians or “4 point Calvinists”, reject Limited Atonement altogether), but a Calvinist doctrine nonetheless, and, within the established context of Total Depravity and Unconditional Election, it necessarily follows.

If Christ paid the price for someone’s sins, God would not damn that person for those sins. If Christ paid the price for everyone’s sins, God would not damn anyone. Yet, God still damns people. Therefore, Christ did not pay the price for everyone’s sins. If Christ’s sacrifice made salvation potentially available to all, then salvation would be potentially possible for even the reprobate. Because God has predestined the damnation of the reprobate, there is no possibility for their salvation. If there is no possibility whatsoever for certain people to be saved based on God’s sovereign decree, then Christ’s sacrifice does not give them that possibility. Jesus said on the cross “It is finished”, which in Greek is “tetelestai” and also means “paid in full”. If Christ’s atonement only introduced the possibility of salvation, it would not in fact be finished; it would only be finished on Judgement Day when the salvation of souls is finally secured. So then Christ’s sacrifice did not give everyone the possibility of salvation, but fully secured the salvation of the elect by paying for their sins in totality.

If Christ’s sacrifice did absolutely nothing for anyone, then Christ’s sacrifice would have been pointless. God does not do pointless things. Therefore, Christ must have died to ensure the salvation of some people but not other people. In other words, His atonement is limited.

The only logical way to avoid Limited Atonement is through Apokatastasis, otherwise known as Universalism, or through complete damnation. If Christ died for all of the sins of all people, it would not make sense, according to God’s just nature, for people to be punished in hell for a sin that Jesus had already suffered the punishment for. If Christ died for only some of everyone’s sins, then they still have sins unatoned for and no one can enter heaven at all. These two positions are not only widely condemned but completely unbiblical. The only option that does not logically fall into these heresies is that Christ died for all of the sins of some people.

The general counterargument, particularly from an Arminian point of view, is that although Christ’s sacrifice applied to all humans and all their sins, it is only effective for those who have faith. This implies that not having faith is the sole thing which damns someone. However, unbelief is itself a sin, and if Christ died for all the sins of all people, He died for the sin of unbelief, and, as previously stated, God would not damn someone for a sin Jesus already died for.

Scriptural Basis:

I: Irresistible Grace

God not only sees to it that the gospel is proclaimed to the elect outwardly, and enlightens their minds powerfully by the Holy Spirit so that they may rightly understand and discern the things of the Spirit of God, but, by the effective operation of the same regenerating Spirit, God also penetrates into the inmost being, opens the closed heart, softens the hard heart, and circumcises the heart that is uncircumcised. God infuses new qualities into the will, making the dead will alive, the evil one good, the unwilling one willing, and the stubborn one compliant. God activates and strengthens the will so that, like a good tree, it may be enabled to produce the fruits of good deeds.

If human nature is to reject God’s saving grace, then it is an impossibility for some people to be saved unless humans are not the final arbiter of whether they accept salvation or not. As it has been established that prevenient grace fails to fundamentally alter the disposition of its subjects, for grace to save anyone, it must alter their disposition of will. If God’s grace made humanity’s will completely neutral, unless there is anything that provokes our will towards good or evil, we would be stuck in a situation akin to Buridan’s ass, a thought experiment in which a donkey is placed in between two identical piles of hay, and because the animal has no logical reason to choose one pile over the other, it stays still and eventually starves to death. We would remain in such a situation until something beyond ourselves drew us in either direction. If something did provoke our will towards either good or evil, the provocation must have been generated from a source outside ourselves for our will to remain truly neutral. If our disposition of will, and thus our salvation, is dependent on the provocation of an external force, there is still no cooperation on behalf of the individual in their own salvation. The grace God offers some humans, but not others, must fundamentally alter their own inclination towards the Good, thereby eliminating the possibility for the individual to resist.

One misconception regarding the doctrine of Irresistible Grace is that God’s will overrides the will of the elect, yet their own personal will remains forever predisposed towards evil. It does not teach that the soul saved still wants to commit sin, but that God mystically and perfectly changes their disposition of will, so that they may be eternally inclined towards the Good.

Because human salvation is dependent entirely on God (monergism), if God relied on humans to accept His grace, they would be participating in their own salvation (synergism), which according to the doctrine of Unconditional Election, cannot occur.

Scriptural Basis:

P: Perseverance of the Saints

God, who is rich in mercy, according to His unchangeable purpose of election, does not wholly withdraw the Holy Spirit from His own people, even in their melancholy falls; nor suffers them to proceed so far as to lose the grace of adoption, and forfeit the state of justification, or to commit the sin unto death; nor does He permit them to be totally deserted, and to plunge themselves into everlasting destruction.

God is perfect, and His nature is unchanging. If God Himself is perfect, His will must be perfect, as an imperfect will cannot come from a perfect being, nor can a perfect will come from an imperfect being. If God’s decretive will changed, there must be a reason for it to have changed. If God is perfect, for Him to change His will, His old will must have been inferior in some way to His new will. If some of God’s decrees are inferior to others, then not all of them are perfect. God’s will is perfect. Therefore, God’s decretive will does not change.

God’s decretive will to either save you or allow you to be damned has been determined before the beginning of time. Therefore, because salvation or damnation are a part of something that is unchanging, salvation and damnation are themselves unchanging. If God did allow one of the elect to be damned, He would have changed His decretive will, and thus, violated His own perfection. The Arminian counterargument is that although God’s will is perfect and unchanging, His will is itself conditional on whether the faithful remain within the faith or not. So instead of God’s will being “I will save this person”, it is “I will save this person if they keep having faith in me”. However, this brings us back to the problem of who the final arbiter of salvation is. If it is man who decides on his own salvation, as the Arminian argument implies, then it necessarily relies on man’s depraved will to save himself, which is impossible. It must then be God who is the sole cause of salvation, rather than man. If God’s decree was entirely dependent on the faith of men, then the final arbiter of salvation is man.

Someone who is of the elect cannot ultimately lose their salvation, for if they did, either God’s election was not powerful enough to save them (impossible), or God’s willingness to save them changed (also impossible). It is only if God, after choosing His elect, does not let them fall into damnation, that God’s omnipotence and unchanging nature are preserved.

On a final note, you cannot accept some of the doctrines of TULIP whilst rejecting the others. You can’t believe in Total Depravity and maintain that salvation is dependent on human will (as the Arminians do vainly talk). You can’t believe in Unconditional Election and claim that God doesn’t change the disposition of will of the elect. You can’t believe that Christ paid the price for the elect’s sins, but that He allows them to fall from faith. For this reason, I think that if you are to oppose Calvinist theology, you must reject its claims entirely, as Catholics and Orthodox Christians do, rather than adopting a highly inconsistent theology.

Scriptural Basis:

For the last 80 years, Christ’s Church has succumbed to a great spiritual evil. Under the guise of interreligious unity and theological pluralism we have been taught that the Jews maintain their covenant with the Lord, that we owe our religion to the Jews, and that Christendom’s absolute rejection of Judaism is something that we must apologise for. This only proves the Church’s spiritual degradation and hijacking at the hands of the Jews; it is clear that the Church cares little for the true teachings of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ and seeks only the friendship of the world (James 4:4).

Supersessionism: Christian Orthodoxy

The historic Christian position, in Catholicism, Protestantism, and Orthodoxy, has been supersessionism, the idea that the Christian Church has superseded the Jewish people, assuming their role as God’s covenanted people. Despite being the consensus among the Church Fathers, Roman Scholastics, and the Protestant Reformers, it was denounced by all mainstream Christian denominations following the post-war debasement of Christian theology.

The most notable supersessionist in the Early Church was Augustine, who taught that the Jews were punished for their unbelief to serve Christians.

This trend followed into the Medieval Era, and remained the official teaching within orthodox Christianity.

And later, was preached by the Protestant Reformers.

It was only when the Jews altered Christian theology, such as in the case of Nostra aetate, the Catholic declaration condemning supersessionism that was authored by a sodomite Jew, that Replacement Theology was denounced, and must now be argued for against the heresies of dispensationalism and dual-covenant theology.

The Shemitic blessing with the Old Covenant was always a vessel for the New. God says in Genesis 12:3, “in thee shall all families of the earth be blessed.” If God’s covenant was always intended to remain to the Jews particularly, no other family but theirs would be blessed, and the Scriptures would teach falsehood.

Rejecting supersessionism undermines the importance of Christ. Galatians 3:19 states “Wherefore then serveth the law? It was added because of transgressions, till the seed should come.” The “seed” here is undeniably Christ. Because the Law was required due to our transgressions which had not yet been atoned for by Christ, the death and resurrection of our Lord has fulfilled the Ceremonial Law of the Old Testament, bringing an end to the Covenant established on the basis of that Law.

Jesus Himself tells us that the Jews have lost their covenant, and that it has been offered to another nation. In Matthew 21:43, Jesus tells the Pharisees, “The kingdom of God shall be taken from you, and given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof.” We know that this must apply to the Jewish ethnoreligion as a whole because Rabbinical Judaism was founded by the Pharisees Jesus is directing this message toward.

The clearest evidence for supersessionism is in Hebrews 8:13, “A new covenant, he hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away.” If the Old Covenant is decaying, and ready to vanish away, how then can we say that God maintains said covenant?

A common argument against supersessionism, is the everlasting nature of God’s Old Covenant mentioned in Genesis 17:7.

However, the definition of “thy seed after thee in their generations” is understood differently by Paul, stating in Galatians 3:29, “And if ye be Christ’s, then are ye Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise.” The everlasting covenant does not apply to the Jews as a people, but only those who are Christ’s; that is, Christians.

Similar logic is applied for other verses used to support dispensational theology, most notably Romans 11:1.

The question we must answer is regarding to whom “His people” refers, which Paul identifies as Israelites, of the seed of Abraham, and those of the tribe of Benjamin. Dispensationalists interpret this ethnically, as referring to the literal descendents of Abraham, but Paul already defined “seed of Abraham” in Galatians as being a “Christ’s”, not a Jew (in the religious sense of the word, the Jews who are God’s people are only those who believe in Christ). In Romans 9:6, Paul also redefines the meaning of “Israel”, and by extension “Israelites”, stating “For they are not all Israel, which are of Israel”. The Jews claim authority over the Gentiles based on their chosenness from God, but Jesus Christ Himself in Revelation 2:9 and 3:9 tells the Jews that they “say they are Jews, and are not, but do lie”. The true chosen people of the New Testament are those who have a “circumcision of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the written code”.

Furthermore, the Epistle to the Romans was written in between 55 to 58 AD, 12 to 15 years before the destruction of the Second Temple. The supersessionist position is not that God immediately rejected the entirety of Israel the moment Christ was crucified; rather, that unbelieving Jews were broken off (Rom. 11:7) from Christ, and believing Gentiles were grafted in. God was generous to the Jews, offering the Gospel to them first (Rom. 1:16). God only fully cast away the Jews in 70 AD when they universally rejected His Son, though He had not cast away “His people” because there still remained a small percentage of Jews who accepted Christ.

In the words of St. John Chrysostom, in Homily 19 of his Homilies on the Epistle to the Romans:

The current status of the Jewish people in relation to God is made clear in both the Old and New Testaments. The Old Testament already gives us indication of what will happen to the Israelites if they do not “hearken unto the voice of the Lord thy God, to observe to do all his commandments”. Moses tells the Jews in Deuteronomy 28:63-64:

This is later confirmed in the New Testament as the just punishment for the Jews. Hebrews 3:19 tells us that the Jews could not enter the promised land of Canaan because of their unbelief. It was this unbelief that led God to destroy the Second Temple in 70 AD at the hands of the Romans, expelling the Jews from the land of Canaan. This also explains the persecution of the Jews at the hands of Christians for the centuries following the New Testament. John Chrysostom writes in Adversus Judaeos:

Why did God choose Israel?

Regardless of whether the Old Covenant has been superseded, we must still acknowledge the existence and importance of said Covenant. When coming to understand the fact that God chose ethnic and religious Jews to maintain His Covenant for 1,500 years, various positions can be derived from this truth. Those that accept this fact at face-value will either come to adopt the philosemitic Judeo-Christian heresy, or the antisemitic Heathen heresy. The former sees Jewish values as almost identical to Christian ones, leading him to support the modern state of Israel and its sins. And the latter will blind himself in falsehood and blasphemy to the extent that he will fail to grasp even the most unambiguous Christian positions. As orthodox Christians, we must dispense of either falsehood.

God’s election of the Jews was not based on their righteousness. God will have mercy on whom He will have mercy, and He will have compassion on whom He will have compassion. So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy. God does not elect nations based on any foreseen holiness, and this is perfectly demonstrated in the case of the Old Covenant.

The Jews repeatedly worshipped idols (Deut 17:3; Exod 32:4; Num 25:1–3; 1 Kings 11:4–5; 2 Kings 17:16; Ps 115:4–8; Jer 10:3–5; Ezek 14:3), disobeyed the Lord (Num 14:22–23; Josh 7:11; 1 Sam 15:22–23; 2 Kings 18:12; Neh 9:16–17; Ps 78:10–11; Isa 42:24; Jer 11:7–8; Dan 9:11), were increasingly stubborn and stiff-necked (Exod 32:9; Exod 33:3; Exod 34:9; Deut 9:6; Deut 9:13; Deut 31:27; 2 Chron 30:8; Ps 78:8; Prov 29:1; Isa 48:4; Acts 7:51), murdered the prophets (1 Kings 19:10; 2 Chron 24:21; Jer 26:23; Jer 2:30; Neh 9:26; Luke 11:47; Matt 23:33–35; Rom 11:3) and eventually their Lord Jesus Christ (John 5:18; Matt 12:14; Mark 11:18; John 7:1; John 8:37, 40, 44, 59; John 10:31; John 11:53; Luke 19:27; Matt 21:38–39; Matt 26:59; Luke 23:23; Matt 27:25; Acts 2:22–23; Acts 3:14–15; Acts 5:30; Acts 7:52; Acts 10:39; 1 Thess 2:14–16).

Such a nation meritted no covenant with the Lord, yet they received it. Because we know that God is perfect, and that any decision He makes is the best position there is to make, the chosenness of Israel was not just because God pulled a name out of a hat and went with that. The chosenness of Israel was the absolute demonstration of God’s unconditional election and absolute sovereignty. By choosing such an unworthy people, the Lord displayed that it is in His power and rights to raise up nations and damn them as He pleases. His gifts to the Jews were entirely the product of His own mercy and compassion rather than their actions, as there is nothing they could have done that would merit God’s grace.

Even then, why Israel? I mean, even if they were unrighteous, wasn’t literally everyone else at that time? We can never entirely understand God’s intentions until the Day of Judgement, however there are certain facts we can point to that give us reason to believe why God specifically chose the Jews.

In my essay “Christianity is the Faith of Europe”, I established that different races possess different characteristics unique to their environment, culture, and historical pressures. The character of the Europeans is fit for maintaining and spreading Christianity due to the nature of the European environment and its reinforcement in culture. The history of the Jewish people provided them with an entirely different Weltanschauung, that developed into religious laws and a group behaviour that is fit for the purpose God anointed them with.

The Jewish people have been subjected to centuries of exile, conquest, and political domination that forced them to develop a very strict in-group morality and laws for the purpose of survival. Around the 6th Century BC, when the Jews were exiled from Babylon, figures such as Ezra and Nehemiah, and the broader Jewish religious establishment created the Priestly Code, which includes various rules, such as dietary laws and circumcision that served the express purpose of making sure the Jews were “set apart” from the rest of the world, preventing the Jews from assimilating into it. If it were not for these laws, the Jews would not have survived as a group.

The racial character of the Jews is also revealed in their language. The Hebrew language reduces abstract concepts to literal, physical experiences. The Hebrew word used to express compassion (רַחֲמִים) is identical to the word for the plural form of the womb (רֶחֶם), whereas in Proto-Indo-European languages, compassion is expressed with the compound “*kred-dʰeh₁-” which means “to place one’s heart” and reflects an internal state rather than a physical body part associated with compassion.

In Hebrew, an patient person is called a “אֶרֶךְ אַפַּיִם”, which means “long of nostrils”, and an impatient person is “קְצַר רוּחַ”, meaning short of breath. In PIE, patience comes from the root *telh₂-, which means “to endure”, or “to carry a burden”, which evolved into the Proto-Germanic “*þuljaną”, and later the modern German words “Geduld” (patience) and “geduldig” (patient).

Similarly, the Hebrew word “eternity” (Olam/עוֹלָם), means “beyond the horizon”. The Jewish language is unable to conceive of eternity as an abstract, unending timeline, but as something that simply exists beyond their line of sight. This gives their religion a reduced understanding of the eternal; the eternal soul, the eternal God, the eternal afterlife, etc. Instead, it focuses heavily on the material.

For example, their relationship with the eternal, omnipotent, omniscient Yahweh, is seen as a legally binding contract, rather than an inward confession of faith and trust in the divine. Judaism teaches that if the Jewish people follow the Law (such as not eating certain foods, not wearing certain clothes, not planting different seeds in the same field, etc.), they will receive Yahweh’s blessings, and when they break the Law, they will receive Yahweh’s curse. In fact, in the earlier books of the Old Testament, there completely lacks the concept of an eternal heaven and hell. When one disobeys God, their punishments are entirely temporal, such as famine, military defeat, plague, and so on.

Houston Stewart Chamberlain writes in The Foundations of the Nineteenth Century, page 232:

Of course, this does not mean that Jews are completely incapable of abstract thought. Many of the teachings of the Jewish prophets specifically combat the legalism and materialism of the Jewish people. Much of the Hebrew Bible consists of poetry, which is revelatory of the word of God revealed through the Prophets, rather than the nature of the Jewish people as a collective.

Following the compilation of the Talmud, Jews have engaged in numerous debates regarding minor actions that are totally irrelevant to one’s relationship with God. For example, carrying an object into a public area is prohibited on the Sabbath (for some reason). So the Jews created a loophole in which if they create an artificial boundary (usually a wire) around any given area, that then turns it into a private domain (somehow) and allows them to carry objects outside on the Sabbath. The Jews have spent centuries debating what the boundary can be made from, how high the wire can be for it to still serve as a boundary, what happens if the wire breaks, etc. Furthermore, the Jewish prohibition of work on the Sabbath has brought into question the definition of “work”. Tractate Eruvin 100b and Tractate Shabbat 50b discuss whether it is even permitted to walk on grass on the Sabbath if your shoes tear the grass up by the roots and you inadvertently “reap” the grass, which classifies as work and is forbidden, coming to the conclusion that it is permitted to talk on a standard lawn, but not overgrown grass.

Whilst Christians were debating the Holy Trinity and the natures of Jesus Christ, Jews were debating what kind of knots you’re allowed to tie on Fridays and Saturdays.

So now we return to the initial question: why did God choose the Jews? And the answer is this: God chose the Jews because their racial character was fit for maintaining the Old Covenant with God. The Jewish nature; materialism, legalism, superficiality, etc., is perfect for maintaining the Holy Scriptures and Moral Law until the Messiah would be birthed, nullifying the covenant.

The Jews call these legalistic and materialist practices “Syag la-Torah”, or “a fence around the Torah”. Jewish practice is the fence that guards the teachings of the Torah from the Gentile world. If the Jews had intermarried and assimilated into other cultures when they were conquered, the teachings of the Torah would have been lost or assimilated into the pagan beliefs of their neighbours. It could be argued that God chose the Jews for a purpose that required legalism and materialism, therefore the Jews are legalists and materialists, and it can be argued that the Jews are legalists and materialists, therefore God chose the Jews for a purpose that required legalism and materialism; but the sequence of events is less important to this discussion than the nature of the events themselves.

If God had endowed His Commandments to a more expansionist people, the chances of those Commandments being lost by assimilating with other cultures conquered by said people would have been much higher. This has occurred various times in history. When Rome annexed Greek city-states, the Romans adopted Greek philosophy, particularly Stoicism and Epicureanism, Greek architecture, Greek literature, Greek art, etc. Horace said on the matter, “Captive Greece took captive her rude conqueror.” When the Manchu conquered the Ming Dynasty, they began performing Confucian rituals, believing in Chinese gods (such as Guan Yu, Zao Jun, and Caishen), and abandoned their traditional nomadic practices. This is why God did not choose Japheth to begin with. If He had, the Japhethites would have conquered other nations and the Holy Scriptures would have become lost among native pagan beliefs and practices.

The Japhethites were chosen when the New Covenant began. I have discussed this previously, so I will not go over it in too much detail, but the Japhetic blessing to be enlarged is aligned perfectly with Jesus’ command to make disciples of all nations. God is not lazy in whom he decides to elect to the status of “chosen people”. If the Shemites were the people elected for the New Covenant, it is unlikely that they would have expanded into other territories to spread the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

The Insufficiency of Old Testament Scriptures

For these reasons, we must proclaim that the scriptures of the Jewish people are not as valuable as the New Testament.

The German Christians put it well in points 11, 12, and 13, of their 28 Theses, which read:

Though this teaching may come as a surprise to many modern Christians, this is what the historic Christian Church has taught. In the words of St. Augustine, “The New is hidden in the Old, and the Old is made clear in the New”. The Old Testament exists in preparation for the New Testament, and thus we can still find Christ within the pages of the Old Testament, but only when we read it through the lense of the New.

The Old Testament was written at a time in which humanity had no possibility for redemption, and thus cannot provide us with any salvific grace. In Lutheran terminology, the Old Testament reveals the Law, that is, the Mosaic Law. The Mosaic Law has three distinctions: the Civil Law, how ancient Israel should be governed; the Ceremonial Law, the ceremonies (ritual purity, temple worship, sacrificial atonement) the Jews ought to practice; and the Moral Law, the eternal, unchanging commandments God requires all of humanity to follow.

Two of these Laws (Ceremonial and Civil) were fulfilled by the coming of the Messiah (though not in the same way. The Civil Law may still be applied to modern nations, despite being unnecessary, but the Ceremonial Law should never be practiced by Christians under any circumstances, and is a direct insult to Christ’s sacrifice to do so), the only remaining Law is the Moral Law. However, through both the teachings of the Old and New Testaments, it becomes clear that we cannot satisfy God’s moral demands on our own. This is where the Gospel comes in. The Gospel is Jesus fulfilling the Moral Law for us, requiring only that we have faith in Him to achieve salvation.

Jesus says in Matthew 13, “Blessed are your eyes, for they see: and your ears, for they hear. For verily I say unto you, That many prophets and righteous men have desired to see those things which ye see, and have not seen them.”

The Old Testament, as previously discussed, reflects the Jewish “Volksreligion” that in many respects cannot and should not be applied to the Gentiles. Things such as circumcision, dietary restrictions, ritual purity, Temple worship, Levitical priesthood, sacrifices, tribal inheritance, genealogical qualifications, and the separation of Israel from the Gentile nations are all religious expressions unique to the Jewish racial character.

As it is the case that much of the Old Testament is dedicated to the the Jewish Ceremonial and Civil law now fulfilled by Christ, and the then unfulfilled Moral Law, much of the Old Testament is rendered obsolete through Jesus.

Therefore, by no means can God’s relationship to the Jewish people, and the Christian relationship to the Jewish scriptures be understood as any reason to justify the promotion of philosemitism or the abandonment of Christianity. It is only through a clear and steadfast understanding of Scripture and the Word of God that we may come to the resolute conclusion that through God’s unmerited election of the Israelitic race, whose laws and customs have been made useless, the Logos could become flesh, and liberate mankind from death. God will not permit the continued corruption of His Church by Judeo-Christianity forever. Ultimately, He shall draw this heresy to a bitter close so that the gates of hell shall not prevail against Christ’s Bride any longer. The Church should not seek reconciliation with the enemies of God, nor should it make peace with those who continually practice what Christ has fulfilled.

Deut. 23. 9 When the Host goeth forth against thine enemies, then keep thee from every wicked thing.

Composed for the Parliaments Armie

Question. What Profession are you of?

Answer. I am a Christian and a souldier.

Q. Is it lawfull for Christians to be souldiers?

A. Yea, doubtlesse: we have Arguments enough to warrant it.

1. God calls himself man of war, and Lord of Hosts.1

2. Abraham had a Regiment of 318. Trained men.2

3. David was imployed in fighting the Lords battels.

4. The Holy Ghost makes honourable mention of Davids Worthies.

5. God himselfe taught David to fight.

6. The noble gift of valour is given for this purpose.

7. The New Testament mentioneth two famous Centurions.

8. The Baptist doth not require the souldiers to leave their profession, Luke 3.14.3

9. Many comparisons are taken from this Calling in the New Testament.

10. There have been many famous Martyrs of this profession.

Q. What does our Saviour meane then by those words? Mat. 5.39.4

A.

1. Christ there onely forbids private revenge and resistance.

2. Scripture is the best interpreter of Scripture: we know that other piaces of Scripture do warrant taking up of Arms in some cases.

Q. What side are you of, and for Whom do you fight?

A. I am for King and Parliament: or, in plainer termes;

1. I fight to recover the King out of the hands of a Popish Malignant Company5, that have seduced His Majesty with their wicked Counsels, and have withdrawne him from his Parliament.

2. I fight for the Lawes and Liberties of my Countrey, which are now in danger to be overthrowne by them that have long laboured to bring into this Kingdome an Arbitrary, and Tyrannicall Government.

3. I fight for the preservation of our Parliament, in the being whereof (under God) consists the glory and welfare of this Kingdome; if this Foundation be overthrown, we shall soone bee the most slavish Nation in the Christian World.

4. I fight in the defence and maintenance the true Protestant Religion, which is now violently opposed and will be utterly suppressed in this Kingdome; and the Popish Religion again advanced, if the Armies raised against the Parliament prevaile.

Q. But is it not against the King that you fight in this Cause?

A. No surely: yet many do abuse the world with this base and absurd objection: our onely aime is,

1. To rescue the King out of the hands of his and the Kingdomes enemies; and to maintain his Honour and just Prerogatives.

2. We endeavour to defend that which the King is bound to defend, both by his Oath and Office.

3. Wee take up Armes against the enemies of Jesus Christ , who in His Majesties name make warre against the Church and People Of God.

4. If the King joine himself with them that seek the ruine of his people, and the overthrow of Religion, surely both We and all good Subjects, may lawfully stand in the defence of both; as the people did against the King Saul for the case of Jonathan, 1 King. 14.45.6

5. We do no more then what our Brethren of Scotland7 did, when they came into this Kingdome with an Army some three or foure yeares since; whose Action the King and both Houses have cleared from all Rebellion, and they remaine justified in what they then did, to all posterity, by an Act of Parliament.

Q. Hath not the King published many Protestations that he will maintain our Lawes, Liberties, and Religion? why then do we feare the subversion of them?

A.

1. Many things have been published in his Majesties name, which in all probability he never saw or knew of.

2. Though the King himselfe may intend really and well, yet the Sonnes of Zervia8 are too strong for him.

3. It is not to be imagined that a Popish Army may will defend the Protestant Religion, or lawlesse Libertines, the Lawes of the Land.

4. We find by wofull experience that he hath many waies failed indivers of those large Promises and Protestations, not withstanding that God hath been so often called to witness.

5. They say it is a Maxime how at Court, that Faith is not to be kept with Hereticks, and such, doe some there, account all true Protestants.

Q. How can you that are Souldiers for the Parliament answer that that place of Paul, Rom. 13. 1, 2, 3, &c.9

A.

1. That place requires not obedience to any unlawfull Commands, neither doth any other place of Scripture, we are no further to obey man, then may stand with the will of God.

2. They are grosly mistaken which say the King is the highest power; Indeed he is the highest person in his Dominions, but the Lawes and Courtes the Kingdom are above him in power, and the King himself is limited and subject to the meanest Court in the Land: Therefore surely the high Court of Parliament must needs be the higher Power, Which not to obey is to resist the Ordinance of God.

3. Supposed the King were the Higher Power, yet if he shall intend or permit the ruine of his subjects, both nature and grace allowes people to preserve themselves.

4. If the King be the highest power by constitution, yet is his power now or in other hands by usurpation. The Queen, Jermin, Bristol, Digby, Cottington, Windebanke, Porter, and many others, have for a long time, and do still mannage the greatest affaires of the Kingdome; so that it were a miserable thing to be subjected in conscience (as That text imports, in some mens exposition might passe for orthodox Divinity) to such enemies and incendiaries both of Church and Commonwealth.

Q. What is it that moves you to take up Arms, and to ingage your selfe in this Civil Warre?

A.

1. The love I beare to my Countrey.

2. The preservation of our Parliament, Laws and Liberties.

3. The defence of our Religion against Poperie.

4. The care of our Posterity.

5. The generall forwardnesse of all good people.

6. The consent, and provocation of all Gods Ministers.

7. The command of the Parliament, which is the Higher Power.

8. The necessity that now lies upon all that feare God in the Land.

Q. What do you think then of those Protestants which sit still, and do not put forth themselves in these times?

A.

1. Either they are not convinced of the necessity.

2. Or they are but luke-warme Professors.

3. Or they are of base and private spirits.

4. Or they are faint-hearted cowards.

5. Or they are secret enemies to God and His Cause.

Q. What danger are such Newters10 in?

A.

1. God takes speciall notice of their disposition and carriage, and will deale with them accordingly.

2. In Gods account all such are enemies; they that are not with him are against him.

3. They deserve neither respect nor protection from Church or Commonwealth.

4. They are in danger to be spued out of Christs mouth, Rev. 3.16.11

5. They are directly under that dreadful curse which the Angell of the Lord denounced against Merosh, Judg. 5.23.12

Q. What say you then of those Protestants, which fight on the Other side, and joyne with the Enemies of our Religion, Parliament and Countrey?

A.

1. I say, that they are unworthy the name of Protestants.

2. I say, that they maintain the cause of Antichrist.

3. That they are the shame and blemishes of Religion.

4. That none of their weapons shall prosper, Isa. 54.17.13

5. That God will utterly undoe them, Zeph. 3.19.14

6. That their swords shall enter into their owne hearts, Psal. 37.15.15

7. That all the blood that hath been shed lies upon their score.

8. That they are in the high-way to perdition, without repentance.

Q. What is the reason thinke you, that so many Protestants, of all degrees, joyne with our Popish enemies?

A.

1. Many are onely Protestants in names but indeed are Papists or Atheists in heart.

2. Many are drawne in to joyn with that Party our of a base feare of suffering in their estates, supporting the Kings side would be the safest.

3. Many to avoid the Justice of Parliament, have hazarded the ruine of their Countrey, to save themselves from their deserved punishment.

4. Many have ingaged themselves with the Kings Party, in hope to make up their broken fortunes.

5. Many for feare of Reformation, which they are not able to indure, and therefore joyne with them that oppose it.

6. Many out of a desperate spirit of Malignancy, and an implacable enmity against the people of God, and all goodnesse.

Q. What is it that you chiefly aime at this warre?

A.

1. At the pulling down of Babylon16, and rewarding her as she hath ferved us, Psal. 137.8.17

2. At the suppression of an Antichristian prelacy, consisting of Archbishops, Bishops, &c.

3. At the Reformation of a most corrupt, lazie, infamous, superstitious foule-murdering Clergy.

4. At the advancement of Christs Kingdome and the purity of his Ordinances.

5. At the bringing to Justice the enemies of our Church and State.

6. At the regulating of our Courts of Justice, which have been made the seats of iniquity and unrighteousness.

7. At the upholding of out Parliaments, which are the Subjects best Inheritance, and the Crowne of our Nation.

8. At the preservation, and continuing of the Gospell to our posterity, and the generations to come.

Q. What hopes have you of prevailing us this Cause?

A. We have incouragernents enough to assure us of good success: there be many arguments to confirm our hope.

1. From the justnesse and goodnesse of the Cause.

2. From the courte that hath been taken.

3. From the condition of those that are ingaged in the businesse.

4. From the quality of our enemies.

5. From the cheerfullnesse of most mens spirits in this Action.

6. From the many defeats and victories already given and obtained.

7. From the assistance of our Brethren of Scotland

8. From the Covenant which, all the wellaffected of the Kingdome have entred into.

Q. Explain these more particularly and in order, and first shew me what hopes you conceive from the goodnesse of the Cause?

A.

1. A good Cause puts life and courage into mens hearts.

2. A good Cause hath GOD ever siding with it.

3. A good Cause daunts and dismays the adverse party.

4. A good Cause will undoubtedly prevails at last.

Q. What is your incouragement from the course that hath been taken?

A.

1. In that all faire and Christian waies before wee tooke up Armes.

2. In that the Lord was solemnly and generally sought unto before this businesse was undertaken

3. In that it was undertaken with good advice, and is guided by a multitude of counsellors.

4. In that it is still followed with the Prayers and humiliations of all the faithful in the land.

Q. What hope have you from them that are ingaged in this Warre?

A.

1. Because all the faithfull and godly Minister of this Kingdome do side with us in this Cause.

2. Because the most of our Commanders are men of disingaged and Publique Spirits.

3. Because our men generally are so full of courage and resolution.

4. Because we have so many godly and religious Souldiers in our Armies.

Q. What from the quality of your enemies?

A. Wee may conclude that God will not prosper them.

1. Because they are for the most part Papists and Atheists, with whom we have to deale.

2. Because they are generally the most horrible Cursers and Blasphemers in the World.

3. Because they are, for the most part, inhumane, barbarous and cruell.

4. Because they are enemies to God, and the power of goodnesse, and therefore the Lord will scatter them.

Q. What doe you gather from the cheerfulnesse of their spirits, that are of your party?

A.

1. ‘Tis an Argument that God hath raised his servants to do some great worke, Psal. 149.5,918

2. ‘Tis an Argument that God will prosper those whom he hath made so willing, Judg. 5.2.19

3. ‘Tis in Argument that such as are so willing and cheerfull in this businesse, will goe on couragiously.

4. ‘Tis an Argument that they are so well assured of the goodnesse of their Cause, that they will live and die in it.

Q. What doe you conclude from the goodnesse that you side hath already had?

A.

1. That Almighty God declares himselfe a friend to our Party.

2. That he hath already much abated the courage of our enemies.

3. That we have all the reason in the World to trust God for the future, who hath done so much for us.

4. That the Lord will glorifie himself more and more in his Churches behalf.

Q. What hopes have you from your Brethren of Scotland?

A.

1. We have cause to acknowledge Gods great mercy, in bringing them to our assistances this time.

2. Their numbers and preparations are great, and they a couragious and warlike Nation.

3. They have given sufficient testimony of late of their love and faithfullnesse towards our Nation.

4. They are as much concerned in this Quarrel as wee, and are resolved to joine with us in

Q. But what grounds have you to comfort your selves from the National Covenant20, which you say so many have entered into?

A.

1. Because it is a testimony of our generall humiliation, and a good beginning of Reformation.

2. Because it is the joy and desire of all good Christians throughout the Land.

3. Because Popery never received so deadly a blow in this Kingdome, as by this Covenant.

4. Because all the Parliaments affaires have prospered well since the Covenant was taken, witnesse our many victories and successes: As 1. Glocester, 2. Newbury, 3. Winchby, neere Horne-Castle, 4. Hull, the same day, 5. Lincolne, 6. Gainsborough, 7. Arundell Castle, 8. Nantwich, 9. Alsford near Winchester, besides many other defeats given the enemy, and divers other places of letter note recovered, without any considerable losse on our side.

Q. But is it not a lamentable thing that Christians of the same Nation, should thus imbrne their hands in one anothers blood?

A. I confesse, it is: But as the case now stands there is an inevitable and absolute necessity of fighting laid upon the good people of the Land.

1. Is it not high time to stand upon our guard, when our enemies have drawn their Swords upon us, to invade our persons, and whatsoever is dear to us.

2. God now calls upon us to avenge the blood of his Saints that hath been shed in the Land, and those many outrages which have been committed against his servants.

3. The whole Church of God calls upon us to come in to the help of the Lord and his people against the mighty.

4. Our children and posterity call upon us to maintain those Liberties, and that Gospel, which we received from our fore-fathers.

5. We are not now to look at our enemies as Country-men or Kinsmen, or fellow-Protestants, but as the enemies of God and our Religion, and siders with the Antichrist; and so our eye is not to pitie them, nor our sword to spare them, Jer. 48.10.21

Q. There are a great many on the Kings Party that have been held honest men, &c. will your sword make no difference between them and others?

A.

1. If they join themselves with the malignant Party, we cannot know them from Malignants.

2. It is to be feared, that such were never of us, because they are so cruel against us: hypocrites commonly when they are unmasked, prove the most dangerous enemies.

Q. Who do you think were the Authors, and occasioners of this unnatural War?

A.

1. The Jesuits, those fire-brands of mischief, with all the Popish party.

2. The Bishops, and the rotten Clergy, with all the Prelatical party.

3. The Delinquents, that were not able to abide the triall of Justice, with all the Malignant party.

4. The formall Gospellers of the Kingdome, that hate a Reformation, with all the Atheistiall party.

Q. Do not many of them that you count your enemies, stand for Religion as well as you?

A.

1. Surely they are mad, that thinke the Papists will fight in defence of the Protestant Religion.

2. They are very simple, that expect any care of the true Religion from the Prelates and their party, who have beene the grand persecuters of it.

3. Neither is it to be imagined , that men so loose, lewd, and wicked, as most of your Cavaliers are, should really intend the preservation of Religion, or any thing else that is good.

4. We know the Earl of Newcastle pretends that he fight for Religion, yet his Army is for the most part Popish, and he said not long since, that men might talk of Religion, and so forth, but Religion of it selfe was but an ayerie thing.

5. Their rage and madnesse against those that they know to have been most zealous and forward in the maintenance and profession of the Protestant Religion, doth sufficiently shew how cordially they stand for Religion.

6. Indeed they do stand for Religion, but just as the Ephesians stood for Diana22, Acts 17.

   I. They stand for Popish Prelacie.

   II. They stand for an Ignominious Clergie.

   III. They stand for the foule-starving Service-Booke.23

   IV. They stand for a companie of stinking Ceromonies.

   V. They stand for abominable Monuments of Idolaterie.
   VI. They stand for unchristian liberty.

Q. Do you think that there will be a Reformation of these things before we shall enjoy any peace?

A. Yea, doubtlesse: and I gather it from these Reasons.

1. Because Gods anger is let loose upon this Nation for these things.

2. Because about this time hundred years Poperie, was suppressed in this Kingdome; and it is noted, that every Centurie, or hundred years, hath produced great alterations in the Church.

3. Because it is Reformation that our Enemies do most feare.

4. Because the Devill and his Instruments do so bestirre themselves at this time.

5. Becaufe all the reformed Churches in Christendome pray for and expect our Reformation.

6. Because the measure of our enemies iniquity is now full.

7. Because a solemne Oath and Covenant is taken to that purpose.

The Second Part of the Souldiers Catechisme

Q. What are the principall things required in a souldier?

A.

1. That hee bee religious and godly.

2. That he be couragious and valient.

3. That he be skillfull in the Militarie Profession

Q. How do you prove that our souldiers should be religious?

A.

1. By Scripture: Deut. 23.9.24 Luk. 3.14.

2. Besides, there be many Reasons to confirme it.
   I. Because they lie so open to death.
   II. They stand in continuall need of Gods assistance.
   III. They fight for Religion and Reformation.
   IV. God hath rais’d them up to execute justice.
   V. Men may be as religious in this Profession as in any other.
   VI. We read of brave souldiers that have been very religious.
   VII. A well ordered Camp is a Schoole of Vertue, wherein is taught, 1. Preparation to death, 2. Continencie, 3. Vigilancie, 4. Obedience, 5. Hardnesse, 6. Temperance, 7. Humilitie, 8. Devotion, &c.

Q. Who do chiefly offend against this Rule?

A.

1. Such souldiers as give themselves to whoring and uncleannesse.

2. Such as use to sweare, and blaspheme the name of God.

3. Such as follow that swinish sin of drunkennesse.

4. Such as plunder and steale whatsoever they come neare.

Q. Are not these things tolerable in souldiers?

A. No more in them then other men: the Scripture saith generally to and of all men whatsoever:

1. That whoremongers and adulterers God Will judge, Heb. 13.5.25

2. That the Lord will not hold him guiltlesse that taketh his Name in vaine.

3. That drunkards shall not inherit the Kingdome of God, 1. Cor. 6.9,10.26

4. That he that doth wrong, shall receive for the wrong he hath done, and there is no respect of persons, Col. 3. ult.27

Q. What is the reason then that there be so many lewd and wicked men in the Parliaments Army?

A.

1. Because Commanders in Chief are not more carefull in choosing godly Officers.

2. Because honest religious men are not more forward to put forth themselves in this service of God and his Church.

3. Because Order and Discipline is not more strictly executed by Superiours.

4. Because Officers in Towns and Countries aim to presse the scumme and refuse of men, and to be easing themselves , pesture our Armies with base conditioned people.

Q. How can we expect a, blessing upon our preparations, when so many godlesse wretches are employed in our Armies?

A.

1. Truly it is a very sad thing, and much to be lamented, and requires the care of the State to remedy.

2. Yet (blessed be God ) we have multitudes of godly and eminent Christians that are ingaged in the Parliaments Service.

3. And besides, we know that God can make use of wicked men to serve his providence, as he doth of wicked Angells.

4. We have many instances of bad men, that have done good service to God and his Church, as Saul, Joab, &c.

Q. Is it well done of some of your Souldiers (which seem to be religious) to break down Crosses and Images where they meet with any?

A.

1. I confesse that nothing ought to be done in a tumultuous manner.

2. But seeing God hath put the Sword of Reformation into the Souldiers hand, I thinke is not amisse that they should cancell and demolish those Monuments of Superstition and idolatry, especially seeing the Magistrate and the Minister that should have done it formerly, neglected it.

Q. But what say you to their tearing and burning the Books of Common Prayer, in every place where they come?

A. Much may be said in their justification, who shew themselves so zealous against that Booke.

1. It hath been the fomenter of a most lazy, lewd, and ignorant Ministry.

2. It hath been the Nurse of that lamentable blindnesse and ignorance, which hath overspread many parts of this Kingdome.

3. It is a great cause of our present calamities, for who are they that side with our Popish Enemies, but Common-Prayer men?

4. It is become the most abominable Idoll in the Land, people generally doe doat upon it , as much as the Ephesians upon Diana • and prefer it before Preaching in many places, being strangely inraged for the want of it.

5. It is high time therefore to remove this Brazen Serpent28 and grind it to powder, seeing it is the occasion of so much evil.

6. It is very likely therefore that God hath stirred up the spirits of some honest souldiers to be his Instruments for the destruction that Idoll.

7. It belongs to the Parliament Souldiers, upon the matter, to remove all scandalous things they meet with, having covenanted, and ingaged themselves in the work of Reformation.

Q. What doe you say concerning valour and courage?

A.

1. I say, it is a most noble and heroicall vertue, that makes some men differ from others, as much as all men differ from beasts.

2. I say, if is impossible for any to be a good souldier without it. An Army of Harts led by a Lion, is better then an Army of Lions led by a Hart.

3. I say, that one valiant man in an Army, is better then a thousand cowards.

4. I say, that a coward degenerates from man, being of a base and ignoble nature.

   I. God took speciall care, that all faint-hearted cowards should be cashiered out of his Armies, Deut. 20. 8.29

   II. Cowards ever do more hurt then good, being like an X before an L.30
   III. And for the most part cowards miscarrie sooner then those that are couragious.

Q. What are the chiefe Arguments and considerations to make a souldier couragious in the Parliaments service?

A.

1. The goodnesse of the Cause, which undoubtedly is Gods, and his Churches.

2. The promise of God , to help his Church and People against his and his Churches Enemies.

3. The manifold experiences that the people of God have had in former ages his assistance.

4. The manifold experiences of Gods special odnesse to his servants in these times.

5. The assurance, that not a haire can fall from our heads without the providence and permission of God.

6. The danger of faint-heartednesse; he that would save his life in such times as these, shall lose it.

7. The promise, that whosoever shall lose his life, or any thing els, in the Cause of Christ and his Gospell, shall be a great gainer by the hand.

8. The consideration that this Warre is surrounded with the prayers and blessings of all the good people of the Land.

9. The multitude of eminent Christians, of all sorts, that are ingaged in this businesse.

10. The great reward of honour here, and glory hereafter, that shall be given to every one that is valiant for the Lord.

Q. What are the principall enemies to courage and valour?

A.

1. Want of experience: fresh-water souldiers commonly faint-hearted souldiers; whereas they that have been used to the Warres are usually of of undaunted spirits.

2. Want of metall: some mens Spirits are naturally so low and base, that they will never prove good souldiers: as it is with cocks, so is it amongst men: there is a breed and generation of cravens.

3. Want of Faith: when a man hath little or no confidence in God, his heart must needs faile him in undertakings of danger; whereas Faith feares not in the valley of the shadow of death. Psal. 23. 4.31

4. Want of innocency, and a good conscience, Prov. 28. 1.32 It was the speech of the valorous Earle of Essex, our renowned Generals Father, (cited by D. Barlow in his Sermon at Pauls Cross, March 1. 1600) That sometimes in the field encountering the enemy, the weight of his sinnes lying heavie upon his conscience, being not reconciled to God quelled his spirits, and made him the most timerous man that might be.

5. Want of wisdome and consideration: for surely if men would seriously consider the evills of cowardice, and the excellency of valour, it would make them abhorre the one, and be ambitious of the other.

Q. Is there any great need of skill and cunning in this Profession?

A. Yea doubtlesse: for David doth thankfully acknowledge the Lords goodnesse, in teaching his hands to warre, and his fingers to fight, Psal. 144. 1.33

1. Great wisdome, policie, and experience is required in Commanders.

2. And no lesse skill and dexterity in common souldiers; they must know how to handle their Armes, how to keep Ranks, &c.

3. Certainly a few well-trained Souldiers are better then a multitude of raw, unexperienced men.

Q. What should be done to make souldiers skillfull in their Art ?

1. Officers should bee very diligent in teaching and exercising their men.

2. Common souldiers should make it their businesse to learn and get what cunning they can.

3. Every souldier should seeke to God by prayer, that he would instruct and teach them: for it is the blessing of God that makes men to profit in any profession.

4. Both Commanders, Officers, and common Souldiers may advantage themselves by reading and observing what hath been written by eminent Souldiers of this Act.

Q. How ought Commanders and Officers to carry themselves towards their Souldiers?

A.

1. Religiously, shewing them not evill example, but being a patterne to them of virtue and godlinesse.

2. Lovingly, not in a sterne rugged manner, considering that their Command is not over Beares, But men.

3. Discreetly, incouraging them most that deserve best, and avoiding so much familiarity as may breed contempt.

4. Justly, not defrauding them of their due, nor doing or suffering any injury to be done to the meanest.

Q. How should inferiour Souldiers demeane themselves toward their Commanders and Officers?

A.

1. They must acknowledge and honour them as Superiours, and account them as men set over them by the providence of God and wisdome of the State.

2. They must be exactly obedient to their command, ever for conscience sake, Rom. 13. 5.34 Of all men Souldiers are most strictly tyed to obedience, the want whereof may prove of very dangerous consequence.

Q. What say you of such Souldiers as are given to mutining?

A.

1. They are as dangerous Cattle as can belong to an Army.

2. They deserve severe punishment, and to be utterly cashiered.

3. They will hardly ever prove good Souldiers that are taynted with this humour.

Q. What your opinion of those Souldiers that run away from their Colours?

A.

1. Such are, by Martiall Law, to suffer death, and surely, they well deserve it.

2. ‘Tis a most ignoble and base part to doe so, and they deserve to be branded with infamy for ever, that are guilty of it.

3. Nay it is a fowle wickednesse, being offensive both to God and man, Psal. 78. 9.35

   I. For such (if the Cause be just) doe abandon the Cause of God.
   II. They deceive that trust which was reposed in them by the State.

   III. As much as in them lies, they betray the Cause they have undertaken.

   IV. They give dangerous example and may occasion the overthrow of an Army.

Q. How ought souldiers be incouraged and rewarded?

A.

1. They ought to be highly honoured, especially such as have been couragious and faithfull in their Countreyes Service.

2. They ought to be well maintained, with sufficient allowance, while they are abroad in imployment; for no man goeth on warfare at his own charges.

3. They that have received any hurt or losse by the warres, ought to be liberally provided for, and comfortably mantained all their dayes, by them that sent them forth .

Q. What Arguments have you to prove, that such honour and respect should bee done to our souldiers?

A.

1. They that fight against the Churches Enemies, are Gods helpers against the mighty, Judg. 5. 23.

2. They are the Instruments of Justice, and the Executioners of Gods Judgements, Psalme 149. 7, 9.

3. They shew themselves men of publike spirits, and true lovers of their Countrey.

4. They shew themselves valiant and couragious, which are very high deserving qualities.

5. No men undergoe such hardship and hazzard as the souldier doth.

6. None deserve better then they, either of Church, Commonwealth, or Posterity.

FINIS.

Within the Christian-Pagan divide on the Right, one of the most substantial claims made by pagans when attacking Christianity is that because Christianity originated in the Levant among a Hebraic ethnoreligion, it is thus foreign to Europe and our people, and cannot serve us. What this gets right is that, yes, Christianity originated among a geographically and culturally foreign part of the world. But it gets many things wrong; namely, it assumes that Christianity must be applied equally to all people, that God is bound by His own covenants and mode of expression, and that something “foreign” cannot benefit us.

Christianity is a universal religion, meaning it is true at all times in all places regardless of individual opinions. Liberal Christians and other Universalists will take this fact, and use it to justify treating humanity as a singular blank slate, identical in everything but appearance. From this, they treat truth (usually meaning “democracy” or “human rights”) as something that is equally accessible across all races, cultures, and parts of the world. From this perspective, Christianity is entirely universal and in no way particular.

On the other end of the spectrum are those who believe Christianity is entirely particular and in no way universal. Christianity is the ethnoreligion of our people because our people are genetically descended from the people of the Old Testament. These people usually tend to be Christian Identity or Black Hebrew Israelites.

What both of these perspectives get wrong is reducing Christianity, and truth as a whole, to either two extremes. The truth is that whilst Christianity is a universal religion, Christianity is not a universalist religion, because, although it ought to be applied everywhere, it cannot be applied equally anywhere.

This is because human races are fundamentally different. Biologically, culturally, and metaphysically.

Biologically, environmental differences between races place them under certain pressures that force them to adapt in ways that heavily influence them as groups, affecting bone structure, phenotypes, ancestral origin, cognitive capacity, physical capacity, behaviour, and civilisational achievements. Just as it affects the physical aspects of different races, it also affects the mental aspects that lead them to think, plan, and act in different ways. The mind does not organise experience equally across all humans.

Traits being continually selected for among isolated groups will solidify themselves when culture begins to develop. As a high culture matures, it develops arts, politics and sciences in accordance with the biological traits of its population. Intellectual and artistic traditions, philosophical systems, and religious doctrines, are outward manifestations of these underlying racial traits, expressions of a shared mode of thought rooted in inherited mental structure. Africans were placed under environmental pressures that forced them to adapt to have higher fecundity, short-term thinking, early maturity, lower parental investment and lower lifespan. Such traits do not allow for abstract thought or long-term planning. For this reason, Africans society never developed a high culture.

Once the biological traits have solidified themselves in a culture, with myths, heroes, laws, and customs, it creates an environment that rewards those within the group who best embody those specific traits. Over generations, this serves as a form of natural selection that reinforces the traits that created the culture to begin with.

The influence of both these two factors permeate through every layer of the human experience, organising humanity into different racial souls. The soul is the inner essence of a human being, that once subject to biological and cultural requirements, will introduce them in the hearts and minds of any given population. Once the soul of the race has been influenced as such, their entire perception of reality (morality, religion, philosophies), becomes defined.

From this, we can gather that when certain ideas are applied to any given race, how it will be understood, treated, and used, will be fundamentally different. For example, look at the post-colonial history of the Caribbean or Sub-Saharan Africa. When the European institutions of law, civilisation, morality, and government were inherited by non-European populations, those institutions did not remain stable. They were either completely abolished (as in the case of Rhodesia, Haiti, South Africa, etc.) or transformed by the cognitive and behavioral habits of the indigenous people (as in the case of India, Botswana, Papua New Guinea, etc.). This is because the short-term thinking and cognitive limits of the indigenous people made them inherently hostile towards those institutions.

Because there is no such thing as equal access to the truth, the truth of Christianity will not be grasped equally across all races. Races oriented towards the principles upheld by Christianity are better fit for the furtherance of Christianity.

The environment of Europe is subject to cold temperatures, long winters, difficult terrain, and harsh seasonal variations, which selects for advanced delayed gratification, spatial mapping, long-term thinking, and smaller, more loyal social structures, rather than that of the much larger cities of Mesopotamia.

The combination of these traits produced a racial-soul unique to those who developed in such environments, one that is defined by the introspectivity forged by long periods of winter isolation; moral autonomy and personal honour, due to the decentralised nature of communities that were governed by Honour (Ère), Peace (Frith), and Shame (Níð) before any external imposition of a legal code, and the guilt-based nature of society; loyalty, derived from the comitatus system, and the structure of clans that was required to survive the arduous living conditions; sacrificial duty, found particularly in ancient European myths, such as in Odin hanging himself from a tree as a ritualistic self-sacrifice; heroic willpower, as the nature of the Northern environment was brutal and uncompromising, requiring the European man to impose his will on nature to survive; abstract thought, a quality only capable among populations able to think beyond themselves, this manifested itself in Proto-Indo-European language, which is extraordinarily complex and allows the expression of abstract concepts. This complexity is present at the root before the European branches diverge, meaning it predates recorded history and reflects something constitutive of the people who spoke it.

Any religion that upholds these same values and requires the same way of thinking is the one that will be most likely to be accepted and most consistently upheld by the Europeans. From thousands of years of biological and cultural progress, Europeans developed a specific racial character, one perfectly fit for the Christian faith.

Christianity is an inwardly-faced religion. The kingdom of God is within you, not in your actions, this means that what saves you is ultimately inside of you, your faith. Jesus Himself expressed this sentiment in saying “My kingdom is not of this world”. Similarly, much of Jesus’ ministry was spent criticising the Pharisees for their legalism and externality in their faith.

This sentiment was prophesied in Jeremiah:

The law exists primarily within our hearts before it is to be imposed upon us by an external code. Loyalty is what upholds the law. Loyalty to our “kingsmen according to the flesh” as Paul puts it, meaning our ethnic clan, our fellow brothers and relatives, is a central topic throughout much of the Bible (Pro. 17:17, 18:24, 23:22, 27:6, 27:9, 27:10; Ecc. 4:9-10; John 15:13; Ruth 1:16-17; Zec. 13:6; Gal. 6:10; 1 Ti. 5:8; 1 John 4:20; Exo. 32:32; Rom 9:3, 10:1, 11:14). Furthermore, we must have unwavering, unquestionable loyalty to God, even in the face of death, for God Himself was willing to die for us. God died on a tree (Acts 5:30; Gal. 3:13) with a spear pierced in His side, refusing to drink what He was offered, for a sacrificial purpose. This is obviously very similar to the Indo-European idea of the sacrifice made by Odin.

Christianity requires of a man that he refuse the temptations of his lower impulses, imposing his will on the forces of Satan that he may transcend past those desires towards a greater and purer life. Lastly, Christianity requires the capacity for abstract thought more than any other religion. The concept of a God Who is three persons yet one being is beyond anything the senses can perceive. The Incarnation, God becoming man, is something the mind can hardly begin to fathom without long periods of time in which one has the ability to even consider these things. During its much later stages, pre-Christian Europe began to develop more complex metaphysical systems in the form of Neoplatonism, which eventually became adopted by Christians very early on because those systems were expressions of the seeds of truth God has planted within European culture before He directly gave us direct revelation of that same truth.

The broader concepts of Christian belief are not completely alien to Europe. The concept of gods dying and rising again is found multiple times in European mythology, with the imagery of the death of Odin being almost identical to that of Christ, or the death of Baldr, a “sinless” god who was killed, and is believed to resurrect after Ragnarök. Similarly, the descent of God down to hell is not exclusive to Christianity, and is found in the myth of Dionysus and Hermóðr. Through these similarities, it becomes obvious that the European soul was oriented in the same direction as Christianity was.

When Christianity arrived to the Germanic race, the teachings of Christ were already deeply embedded into the European way of thinking. Heliand is a great example of this. Heliand is a 9th-century epic poem written in Old Saxon that tells the story of the life, death and resurrection of Jesus using the imagery of ancient Germanic epics. The entire theological message of the Gospel remained intact; Jesus heals the sick, feeds the hungry, and walks on water, dies, and rises again. But the imagery is changed from first century Judaea to ancient Germanic society. The Heliand resonated so much with the Germanic people due to the fact that the mythos of Jesus Christ and of Christianity were on a fundamental level, already expressed by the Germanic tribes before Christ was born, they were only expressed through pagan myths rather than Christian one.

Pagans will often point to forced conversions as evidence that Europe was never truly Christian, and that it was forced upon us by Charlemagne and other Christian kings. Firstly, this reduces European conversions entirely to a single method that, although common, was one among many. Others include missionary work, advancements made by Christians, cultural assimilation, the influence of royal conversions, and monasticism. Second, it assumes that if Christianity is forced upon a population, that that population can never be truly Christian, and Christianity will never take root in that population. Forced conversion does not mean forced faith, as the forcefully converted under Charlemagne went on to produce the marvels of Christian civilisation and the most earnestly Christian population on earth. The existence of Crypto-Pagans was minor and only existed within small groups of intellectual elites. Their argument would also imply that the Middle East is not Muslim because Islam mostly spread through conquest and political coercion of Christian and Zoroastrian territories. It also implies that Latin America is not truly Christian because of the forced conversions led by the Spanish and Portuguese. The achievements of Christian Europe would not have taken place if forced conversions were unable to produce a genuinely Christian population. Forced conversions were one of the ways in which Europe became Christian, but the conversion of Europe to Christianity was in no way entirely dependent on them.

A question that arises from all this is “If paganism already expressed the European soul, why did we need Christianity to come a long and replace a religion that already was perfectly fit for our racial characteristics?”

The primary problem with paganism is that it is unable to reconcile itself with the Faustian spirit of the European. The will of the Europeans is always beyond that which they can attain, it is an insatiable desire for knowledge and power and a constant state of unrest. This is found throughout all elements of European civilisation, such as colonialism’s constant territorial expansion, infinitesimal calculus, Gothic cathedrals, the invention of the telescope, astronomy, etc.

Paganism is unable to match this character. Paganism is focused on what is near, at hand, or perceivable through the senses. The gods pagans worship are part of the nature we see, hear, feel, smell, and taste every day; their highest conception of divinity rests at the top of a mountain. Another problem with paganism is that, although it reduces the divine to flawed anthropomorphic beings, they remain detached arbitrary forces that rule over humanity for their own gain. Christianity teaches the doctrine of the Incarnation, which collapses the gap between God and man, bringing the European man closer to the divinity he chases after.

The capacity for abstract thought unique to the Europeans remains unsatisfied with such a short-sighted religion. The aforementioned introspectivity and Faustian striving does not orient oneself in the direction of the material as the highest good; rather, only a religion whose orientation is directed at the spiritual, the metaphysical, the supranatural, and the systematically complex. Other religions, namely Islam, hardly even need to be brought into question for the fact that they have no positive history with the European people. Islam is spiritually, geographically and ethnically foreign to the European. For example, Islamic salvation is almost entirely external. It is the complete opposite of both European and Christian spirituality because it is defined by not eating or drinking certain things, praying exactly five times a day at a certain time, the requirement to wash your hands, mouth, nose, face, arms, head, and feet in that order before praying (a practice very similar to the Pharisaical requirement for religious handwashing, which Jesus rebuked for its externality). None of these are characteristics found in internal European spiritualism.

Christianity is the only religion that is able to provide the restless striving and spiritual inwardness that Europeans desire. This is why Europe was its greatest under Christianity, territorially, economically, culturally and politically, as the Faustian striving that is the cause of all greatness was not suppressed by the religious ethos of Europe.

The second objection upon which the crux of the debate rests, is that if Christianity is so fit for Europeans, why is the Bible almost entirely about non-European people and non-European myths? Why should Europeans adhere to a religion entirely about Hebrews and not paganism, which is entirely about our own people? This is probably the best argument in favour of paganism, but it also misunderstands the nature of covenants and providence. Rather than falling into the Christian Identity cope of “akshually the Israelites were blonde and Aryan dude! My hyperliteralistic interpretation of Bible verses taken out of context proves this”, I will admit the premise that Scripture is primarily not about European people, but the answer to this problem is found in in the first book of Scripture.

Genesis chapter 9 and 10 divide humanity into three distinct groups, the three sons of Noah. The Hamites, descended from Ham, who are the Africans; the Shemites, descended from Shem, who are the Semitic people and other Asiatic groups; and the Japhethites, descended from Japheth, who are the Europeans. Once we understand the distinct roles of these three groups, we can understand what this means for us as Europeans today.

The lineage of Ham was cursed to be in servitude to both Shem and Japheth (I explain why Ham was cursed rather than Canaan here). The lineage of Shem was blessed to bear the Old Covenant with God. The lineage of Japheth was blessed to be “enlarged” and “dwell in the tents of Shem”.

The purpose of Shem was always intended to be temporary. Its primary purpose was to birth the Son of God. Because the Son of God was born, and He fulfilled His purpose on Earth. The Shemites, rather than accepting their Messiah, rejected and killed Him, defaulting the covenant promised to them.

Japheth’s promises is stated in Genesis 9:27

This verse has caused much debate over the meaning of the words “enlarge”, “dwell”, and “tents”.

The Hebrew word used for “enlarge” is יֶפֶת. The word also refers to beauty. Other meanings of the word are “to open”, “to make spacious”, “to be without boundaries or limits”, and “to unfold or expand to full potential”.

The most literal interpretation of the verse is territorial expansion; God blessed Japheth with the worldwide empire he would later acquire. Given the alternative meanings of the word, it likely also refers to European cultural, political, and economic dominance, and the nature of the Japhetic race; to be limitless, without boundaries, to strive ceaselessly, to possess the desire to expand and conquer, and dare I say, to be Faustian.

In the context of the nomadic nature of the early Shemites, the meaning of the word “tent” represents the home of an entire lineage, containing everything they possess. This means that everything Shem possesses (including a divine covenant) would also be possessed by Japheth. It also refers to the Tabernacle, a place where God dwells, meaning Japheth would acquire the same relation to God as Shem has in the Old Testament. Because we know that Shem lost his covenant with God (or rather, his access to the “tent”) through rejecting the Messiah, by stating that Japheth shall dwell in the tent of Shem, the Japhethites become the people endowed with the responsibility of upholding their promises and spiritual blessing. God transferred the covenantal duty, meaning the duty to represent God's kingdom on earth, from the ethnic line of Shem (the Semites) to the line of Japheth (the Indo-Europeans).

Shem was chosen first so that God could guide the forces of history in favour of the Japhetic race so that the they would be able to fully receive the Gospel in its truest form (as compared to the distorted Christianities of Africa and Asia), and uphold and spread its principles globally, serving as a covenanted people for the furtherance of God’s will on earth.

This also explains why so much of the New Testament is directed towards European populations. The Epistle to the Romans was of course, written to the Romans; the First and Second Epistle to the Corinthians was written to the church in Corinth, a city in Greece; the Epistle to the Galatians was written to Celtic people who migrated from Western Europe and settled in central Anatolia; the Epistle to the Ephesians was written to Ephesus, a city populated by Greeks; Philippians, Colossians, Thessalonians, Peter, were all addressed to European Japhethites. Of the 27 books of the New Testament, the majority of them were addressed to the descendents of Japheth, as the Japhethites are the successors to the Shemites.

The pagan obsession with their religion being about them specifically is somewhat understandable. Every oikophilic man or woman feels this way in some sense. But Christianity was always intended by God to be held and expanded by us Europeans. The pagan myths, heroes, and way of life was God’s revealed truth to us before we were revealed the full truth of Christianity. Pagans, in worshipping these ancient deities, fail to understand that Christianity was made for us and our people. Thus, we cannot classify Christianity as “foreign” in any meaningful sense.

But pagans will still point to the Old Testament as proof of their claim. Because half of Christian Scripture is particular to the Hebrews, how can it be beneficial to White people? Of course, it has been established that God has decreed that the European kindred inherit the religion of Shem, so it is ultimately futile to point to God’s previous decree and claim that He is bound by that. Whether a religion benefits a certain people or not is determined by what it allows and encourages them to do in the present, not by what that religion was characterised by thousands of years before being inherited by another group of people. Either way, the pagan claim still bears some weight. But it relies upon the assumption that an idea or a myth that is foreign to a people cannot benefit them. They claim that because Christianity once belonged to another group, it cannot benefit us now, despite that it now belongs to us. Unlike with the previous sections of this essay, I will not try to dispute its premises, only its conclusion.

Pagans will often point to the “foreignness” of Christianity without actually demonstrating why that impedes on our greatness in any way. It is entirely possible for a foreign idea or myth to take root in a native people and come to define that people. Buddhism originated in India among an Indo-Aryan and Dravidian population within the broader context of Vedic culture, but eventually spreading outwards to East and Southeast Asian countries such as Thailand, Myanmar, Cambodia, and Mongolia. The countries Buddhism has spread to are different ethnically, linguistically, culturally, and religiously (prior to accepting Buddhism, that is), but to claim that Buddhism is alien to the cultures of those countries is to ignore history completely. When Buddhism arrived to foreign cultures and ethnicities, those cultures were not forced to become more Indian. Buddhism adapted to their cultures, politics, customs, etc. because it matched the racial soul of those people. Is Buddhism foreign to Thailand and the Thai people because it came from Vedic Indo-Aryans? No, of course it is not.

It is in this way that the Shemite myths of the Old Testament are able to benefit us Europeans (by “myths” I mean archetypal stories with underlying truths that may or may not have actually happened). Many great marvels of the European people were directly inspired by these “foreign” myths. Look at Manifest Destiny; the 19th century ideology held by European settlers in the United States that believed they were divinely ordained to expand westwards into North America. Manifest Destiny is a perfect example of European excellence that was brought to its fullest extent by Christianity. American settlers saw themselves as parallel to the Israel of the Old Testament, with the same relationship with God, and the same duty of conquest; only this time it was America, not Canaan.

The entire project of colonialism saw itself this way; European Christians are God’s chosen people with a divine mandate from Heaven to conquer Hamite (Canaanite) populations, converting or destroying them, to please the will of God expressed in Scripture, and to prepare the world for the Second Coming of Jesus Christ.

For a myth to inspire or motivate, the myth itself and the people who believe the myth must have something in common. Pagans reduce this commonality to merely ethnic or geographical similarity and claim that a myth of an ethnically distinct group (in this case, Shemites), cannot inspire any group that is not of that ethnic lineage. But the inspirational power of myths does not require ethnic similarity. The similarity between the American settlers and the Israelites is in their relationship to God, not in their ethnic descent. Because European Christians have inherited a divine covenant from God once held by the Israelites, the mobilising ability that Israelite myths have on the European people have led Europeans to greatness. Pointing to the Israelites being ethnically foreign is a cope.

Another example of biblical myths having a mobilising effect on Europeans is the Great Trek. The Great Trek was the northward migration of Boers to interior South Africa to escape British rule in Cape Colony, displacing the African population on their journey. The Boers saw themselves as analogous to Israel, escaping from Pharaoh (the British), and conquering the Canaanites (the Africans), later using Calvinist theology to justify the existence of the Union of South Africa. There are of course too many examples of this to describe in full detail, but other examples include: the Crusades, the conquest of the Americas, European architecture, monarchy, etc. Pagan myths also have the power to inspire, but it happens on a much more localised level, usually involving tribal warfare between other Europeans, rather than the global achievements and glory granted to the Europeans by biblical myths.

Ultimately, to reject Christianity for being “foreign” is a category error. Christianity was always meant to be held by Europeans, the successors of Israel. God has favoured the Europeans in the history of mankind as a group destined to conquer, civilise, and rule the world. The Israelites were the initial cradle for the Gospel; God planted the seeds of truth there, and through His sovereign will, He has ordained that the faith mature among the Germanic, Nordic, Celtic, Slavic, Latin, and Hellenic people, who were prepared during the thousands of years of pre-Christian Europe to receive the faith.

To reject Christianity is to, in essence, reject what the Creator has prepared for you, it is to deny your birthright. The pagan religion does not allow for the full expression of the Promethean spirit of Europe as they remained bound by their temporal conception of divinity and lack of desire beyond their own tribe.

In the face of the dissolution of our civilisation, it is our foremost duty to preserve and defend the foundations upon which the power of our culture rests. May God almighty take our work into his grace, give true form to our will, bless our insight, and endow us with the trust of our people. Take care, Lord, of all our people. Receive them under Thy shield. Forgive them. Give them rest. Give strength to the living over the adversaries, for the victory of our people and the closeness to Thee, Lord, of our nation, in the hope of its resurrection.

God with us.

A while back I was doing some research into the Portuguese dictator Salazar, who heroically but tragically attempted to maintain the Portuguese empire despite the decolonial movements and the succession of liberalism throughout the West. Salazar came to power in on the fifth of July, 1932, ruling until his death 1970, making him the longest reigning dictator Europe has ever had. He was staunchly Catholic, corporatist, and anti-communist. His politics can be summarised in the Portuguese slogan “Deus, Pátria e Família”, or, in English, “God, Fatherland, Family”.

Throughout his rule, he thoroughly defended the Catholic Church, reversing anti-clerical policies, and enforcing strict Catholic morality. Divorce was banned, abortion was banned, contraception was banned, women were expected to remain at home and husbands had full legal authority over their wives, schools taught Catholic social teaching and were segregated by gender. Economically, he eradicated Portugal’s debt, implemented national guilds, and promoted class collaboration. To halt the spread of communism, he used the International and State Defense Police (PIDE) to incarcerate anyone guilty of being a communist, ban left-wing literature, and silence left-wing press. His attempt to keep his colonies in Mozambique and Angola and his death in 1970 eventually led to the Carnation Revolution (Revolução dos Cravos) in 1974, a military coup that transitioned Portugal from a dictatorship to a democracy.

In 1936, he wrote a book called “Como se Levanta um Estado”, meaning “How to Raise a State”, a guide on how he lifted Portugal from a country in complete ruins and chaos from republican terror and revolutions, to an economically and socially stable nation.

I noticed that the book did not have an English translation, and as I speak Portuguese, I considered I might as well make it myself. I soon realised that translating is very tedious and not something that particularly interests me, so I eventually quit, having only translated a fifth of the book. As to not let my efforts go to complete waste, I’ve decided I might as well post it here in the hopes that it may be of any use.

Note that I have never translated anything before so some things are overly literalistic, and I am not the best Portuguese speaker.

How to Raise a State

First Chapter – National Revolution

I - The Established Disorder

Before we undertake the terms of national reorganisation, just one word (disorder) defines, in all aspects, the Portuguese situation.

Political disorder

From the outset, the irregular operations of public powers - part effect and part cause of all other disorders. Independent of the worth of men and the righteousness of their intentions, the parties, the factions and the political groups, suppose themselves to be, by right, the representatives of democracy; in fact, they exercise national sovereignty, whilst simultaneously conspiring.

The President of the Republic had not force nor stability. The Parliament would constantly offer the spectacle of disagreement, of riot, of legislative incapacity or of obstructionism, and it would scandalise the Country with its procedures and the inferior quality of its work. The ministries lacked cohesion; they could not govern, even if some governors wished to. Public administration, including that of the autarkies and colonies, instead of representing unity and the progressive action of the State, it was on the contrary a living symbol of the lack of general collaboration, of irregularity, of the disorganisation that produced, even in the most spirited, scepticism, indifference and pessimism.

Financial disorder

Directly linked to political disorder, which poisoned all of Portuguese life, in the Metropolis and the colonies there was financial disorder and economic disorder, which, mutually aggravating each other, aggravated political disorder, in a vicious cycle of national evils. I do not intend to thoroughly examine this state of financial disequilibrium, which absorbed both normal revenues like those of the new taxes and fees on which the Parliament voted. They did not even know how to balance the deficit that devoured the Bank of Portugal’s issues and the Nation’s available resources, mobilised by the Treasury’s bond issues and by the repeated draining of the Caixa Geral de Depósitos. In the budget, the treasury, and on all accounts, the excessive proliferation of autonomies, legal or illegal, and the delay in payments, in liquidation, in deeds and in statistics established uncertainty and confusion. I spare you the fatigue of numbers, however there is one that is worthy of mention. Soon after the war (of 1914-18), and despite the isolated efforts to remedy the situation, the annual deficit, reduced in gold to the average exchange rate of each fiscal year, rose up to nearly 5 million pounds sterling, which represents, in six years, around 30 million pounds, that is, 3 million contos* of our modern currency (1936-1937). And, of these large sums, it is known how modest the portion allocated to the true enrichment and appreciation of national assets was.

Disorder: financial disorder

*contos in Portuguese means one thousand units of currency, Escudos in Portugal’s case.

Economic disorder

Rendered impotent from political difficulties and embarrassed by financial difficulties, the State has not conserved, but rather devoured, the riches of the Nation; and consumed, or allowed to be consumed, the collective capital that it received from the past, and the enormous sums that would aggravate the future. The State didn’t have, and couldn’t have, the precautions nor the funding necessary to re-establish and widen the network of land and maritime communications, to stimulate the expansion of agriculture, of industry and of commerce, to solve the problem of electrification and to birth a new life, fruitful and ordered, in the Metropolis and in our colonial domains. But where would the reason for surprise be if, amidst such great evils, the profit rates were 11 percent on the Treasury notes and 15, 20 and even 25 percent on the private contracts in the Country. Why are you surprised by the fact that national production is difficult and expensive, superseded by foreign competition within our own internal market? Why were they surprised to see so few people risking their money in expanding or improving their urban or rural properties? The famine of life we know of was logical; the lack of confidence in the future of Portugal was fatal, in our own home and in foreign lands, where our credit was regrettably restricted; it was inevitable that emigrants would abandon the Country in ever-increasing numbers and that the index of population movement would lower. In the vertigo of the notes, of the prices and trades, the spirit of speculation and adventure supplanted the concern for well-studied and well-undertaken deals; unrestrained usury took the place of just and moderate remuneration of capital; numerous parasites substituted the biddings gained in the creation of wealth.

Disorder: Economic disorder.

Social disorder

A little misery, a lot of indiscipline, the weakness of the governments, the companions, and the complicities generate anarchy in the factories, in the services, and on the street. A regime of insecurity, revolts, strikes and attacks established itself in the Country. When the weakness of governments did not allow them to effectively guarantee the rights of citizens, they anarchically took the defence of their life, interests and property into their own hands; or they allowed themselves to be defeated and slaughtered, dominated by a terror of an audacious minority that impudently served to violate justice. In all cases, disorder: social disorder.

These were the most salient aspects of the grave crisis the Nation was experiencing. Such are the facts that explain why, on the eve on the dictatorship, all sides proclaimed their effort for national salvation which would bring this poor Country a fundamental condition of work and prosperity: order. Thus began the great battle, a battle that is today still not fully fought on every front, nor entirely won in those in which it was fought. But, thanks to the patriotism of the people and the support of the armed forces, it can be affirmed that the fundamentals of the task of reorganisation have already been launched; and its most solid pillars, erected.

II – The Portuguese Revolution

The national revolution, which began on the 28^th of May, 1926* and developed almost immediately, under the high direction of the President of the Republic, would not be explainable nor defensible if it was not profound in its objectives, honest in its processes and essentially popular. It owed the continuation of our historical mission to the national soul. I will delve into these different points.

Europe and the world are stirred in political and social experiments, revolts, revolutions, crises, difficulties, aspirations for a new life; systems are tested; they search for new ways of life and for the equilibrium of societies; worldly principles and institutions fall apart; and others, which should be maintained, also run the risk of being wrecked in the tragic confusion of the moment; the people ever more strongly feel the strings that unite them in solidarity. In this small western corner, not close nor far, in the centre of one of the great civilisations, our Country, which is not of tomorrow, that has a physiognomy and a history, is called to assume its position. We would have learnt nothing from the lessons of our time nor would they have benefited us, if Gomes da Costa’s and the Portuguese Army’s weapons were limited to being a substitution of some men for others, of one particularism for other particularisms, of ambitions and vanities for other vanities and other ambitions.

Before the Nation, barely awakened from its torpor, painfully reanimated from a sickly pessimism, forced by circumstances to defend its name, its life and its historical civilising mission, he who governs cannot take interest in superficial changes that leave its ills intact, but yes, and uniquely, in the profound economic, social and political transformations that gave origin to new customs and new conceptions of social life that it guarantees. In the elevated plane where the problem should be examined, personal susceptibilities, rivalries, groups and parties are not seen. Only the Nation is distinguished and counted in its life, in its necessities, and in its desire for progress; thence, we have courageously taught a politics without politics, or rather, a government without politics, which seemed insane and was a joy for everyone. It was, at least, a new thesis worthy of being experimented, between man’s divisions, and the sad existence of a country that had many people who continued to love it, yet due to the tragic nature of events, very few would serve it.

If we assume that everything had been done, or, in contrast, that nothing was done, we would never understand what was going on or the difficulty of what we aspired. A revolution so large and so profound, either it achieves nothing, or is done by the slow absorption of the new inspiring principles of life; and it would be all the more advanced the more we feel it within ourselves.

*Portuguese nationalist coup that implemented the Ditadura Nacional (National Dictatorship) before transitioning to the Estado Novo (New State) after the adoption of the 1933 Portuguese constitution.

The revolution should not merely be profound in its objectives; it must also be serious in its processes. From seriousness I understand two things: sincerity and gravity. Seriousness is first of all the conformity of feelings with ideas and the conformity of actions with principles. In public life just as private life, the lack of sincerity discourages and fatigues: no political regime that employs lie as its method of governing (or is limited to conventional truths) can be given credit by the popular soul. For us, there are no false accusations used as political weapons, nor facts beyond those which have been proven, nor promises that are not the anticipation of a mature design or of a plan safely carried out. If we are against abuses, injustices, administrative irregularities, favouritism, disorder and immorality, it is because this corresponds to a serious conception of government and not just a political attitude in whose cover we would commit the same abuses and the same injustices. Those who pretend to embrace these principles of national salvation, declare to follow us in revolutionary work, knowing that we intend to resolutely elevate, through means of social reforms, the economic and moral level of the people, but who deep down want nothing more than to lull to sleep, in hopeful expectation, our most lively aspirations and to make use of the peace we offer them in order to forget the demands of justice—these are not of us, nor are they with us.

Seriousness is, secondly, the severity of thought and action. D’Ormesson wrote, as a proposition to the king of the Belgians and of his death, these beautiful phrases: “Alberto the first was serious, behold the word that says it all. He was conscience made king, and it was this that his people and all others felt. Because the people were serious. Life is serious. Work is a serious thing. Making a living, ploughing, handling a tool, educating the children, fight against disease, against provocations, economise on what is necessary to secure one’s old age, are all serious. Believe me, the masses have profound intuitions. They know to distinguish those who have this conception of seriousness from those who do not possess it at all”. The lack of seriousness in public life was the root of more than one political movement.

In the semi-isolation of my work, I seek to detach myself and watch, as a simple spectator, the government’s project; I would feel unhappy if, completely absorbed by action, I lost my critical faculties. The life of the country takes precedent over the government, its processes, complaints, petitions, projects and laws—sad or cheerful, optimist or devastated, humble or proud—, as it is in reality.

It is important. Peace or war, order, authority, discipline, the credit of the State, the honour of the Nation, work, education, old age, infancy, the man who tends to his cattle, the worker that directs his machine, the woman who births her child,—it is all too important to not be a constant worry and not allow profound marks on our conscience.

The importance of life does not necessarily imply the weight of sadness, of pessimism, of discouragement; it is, on the contrary, totally compatible with the joy of the people, entertainment, humour and laughter. It simply requires that things be treated with seriousness.

That is why the little coffee-house conspiracies, the plans of unemployed revolutionaries, and the projects that will bring happiness and abundance simply because they are published in the official gazette, the friends’ offices, cases of nepotism, the division of seats and the creation of chaos, where order and light left sequentially, they distance themselves from the profound national realities and, in general, are no more than infantile games, small familial tragedies under the vigilant watch of their parents.

Anyway, the revolution on the 28th of May is clearly popular because of its preoccupation with being in direct contact with the soul of the people, and for satisfying its most urgent needs. A french journalist was the first, I believe, to unwaveringly affirm in the presence of Europe that the parliamentary decadence and the end of its era of sterile discussions did not in any way imply a reduced role for the nation in public affairs, being perfectly compatible with a closer alliance between governments and peoples. The Portuguese case alone illustrates this point.

The Necessity of Rationality

P1: If the Law of Noncontradiction (LNC) is rejected, then that rejection asserts itself to be true while its opposite is false.

P2: If an assertion claims to be true while its opposite is false, then that assertion implicitly relies on the LNC.

P3: If an assertion denying the LNC implicitly relies on the LNC, then that assertion is self-refuting.

C1: Therefore, if an entity rejects the LNC, then that rejection is self-refuting.

P4: If any rejection of the LNC is self-refuting, then the LNC is an inescapable requirement for objective truth.

C2: Therefore, the LNC is an inescapable requirement for objective truth.

P5: Reality is defined as the totality of objective truth.

P6: If a principle is an inescapable requirement for objective truth, and reality is the totality of objective truth, then that principle is required for anything to exist in reality.

C3: Therefore, the LNC is required for anything to exist in reality.

P7: Rationality is identical to the framework of thought and existence governed by the LNC.

P8: If the LNC is required for anything to exist in reality, then the framework governed by the LNC is required for anything to exist in reality.

P9: If a framework is required for anything to exist in reality, then that framework is part of the ontological nature of reality.

C4: Therefore, rationality is part of the ontological nature of reality.

P10: If a framework is part of the ontological nature of reality, then that framework must be present in every given existence.

P11: If a framework must be present in every given existence, then the absence of that framework in any given existence constitutes a structural contradiction.

P12: If a state constitutes a structural contradiction, then that state is logically impossible.

C5: Therefore, the absence of rationality in any given existence is logically impossible.

The Existence of Self-Existence

P13: Everything that is ontological either derives its existence from itself or from something else.

P14: If an entity derives its existence from something else, its existence must be accounted for by another entity.

P15: An infinite sequence consisting entirely of dependent entities contains no entity that accounts for its own existence.

P16: If a sequence contains no entity that accounts for its own existence, then the sequence as a whole lacks an ultimate account for why its members exist.

C6: Therefore, an infinite sequence consisting entirely of dependent entities lacks an ultimate account for why its members exist.

P17: A “brute fact” is defined as any entity or state of affairs that exists without a sufficient reason or account for its existence.

P18: If a state of affairs is a brute fact, then that state of affairs is inherently unintelligible.

P19: If any part of reality is inherently unintelligible, then certainty in human rational thought is impossible.

P20: Certainty in human rational thought is possible.

P21: If certainty in human rational thought is possible then no part of reality is inherently unintelligible.

P22: If no part of reality is inherently unintelligible, then brute facts do not exist in reality.

P23: The Principle of Sufficient Reason (PSR) is defined as the axiom that every state of affairs in reality must have a sufficient reason or account for its existence (the exact negation of the existence of brute facts).

C7: Therefore, the PSR is true.

P24: Reality exists, and its existence must be accounted for.

P25: According to the PSR (C7), the account for reality’s existence cannot be a brute fact.

P26: According to C6, an infinite sequence consisting entirely of dependent entities cannot provide the account for existence.

P27: If the account for reality’s existence cannot be a brute fact and cannot be an infinite regress of dependent entities, then it must logically terminate in at least one entity that derives its existence from itself.

C8: Therefore, there exists at least one entity that derives its existence from itself (a self-sufficient being).

P28: If an entity is composite, its existence depends on an external cause to unify those parts.

P29: An entity that depends on an external cause is a dependent entity, not a self-sufficient entity.

P30: Therefore, a self-sufficient entity cannot be composite; it must be entirely simple.

P31: If an entity is temporal, its existence requires a beginning, an end, or successive moments, all of which require an external continuous account.

P32: Therefore, a self-sufficient entity cannot be temporal; it must be eternal.

P33: If an entity possesses a distinction between its essence and its existence, then its existence is an attribute added to its essence, making it composite.

C9: Therefore, any self-sufficient entity must be simple, eternal, and possess an identical essence and existence.

P34: If multiple self-sufficient entities coexisted, they would require a differentiating attribute to distinguish one from another.

P35: The presence of a differentiating attribute creates a distinction between the entity’s core essence and its specific attributes, rendering the entity composite.

P36: If an entity is composite, it contradicts its absolute simplicity (established in C9), meaning it cannot be self-sufficient.

P37: Therefore, there cannot be more than one self-sufficient entity.

C10: Therefore, there exists precisely one self-sufficient, simple, eternal ultimate foundation for all existence.

Absolute Unity is the Origin of All Existence.

P38: For any entity to exist, it must possess identity.

P39: If an entity does not possess unity, it lacks identity.

P40: If lacking identity is tantamount to non-existence, then an entity must possess unity to exist.

C11: Therefore, unity is a necessary requirement for the existence of any entity.

P41: Every existing entity is either a contingent entity or a self-sufficient entity.

P42: Contingent entities possess unity, but their unity is derived from an external source rather than their own essence (defined as “participated unity”).

P43: If a characteristic is derived from an external source, its existence must be accounted for by an ultimate cause to avoid an infinite regress (per the PSR established in C7).

P44: The ultimate cause of participated unity cannot itself possess participated unity.

P45: An entity that is the ultimate cause of participated unity and does not possess participated unity itself is defined as “Unity itself.”

C12: Therefore, there must exist an ultimate cause of participated unity that is Unity itself.

P46: As established in C10, there exists one self-sufficient, entirely simple foundation for all existence.

P47: If an entity is entirely simple, its essence cannot be distinct from its attributes; therefore, its essence is identical to absolute Unity itself.

P48: Because there is precisely one self-sufficient foundation (P46), the entity that is Unity itself (C12) must be identical to this singular self-sufficient foundation.

P49: An entity whose essence is identical to absolute Unity exists independent of external contingent relations and acts as the uncaused origin of all participated unity.

C13: Therefore, this absolute Unity exists unconditionally within itself, independent of external contingent relations, and is the uncaused origin of everything that partakes in being and unity.

Cosmic Intelligibility

P50: Human intellect is capable of understanding things within the universe.

P51: If human intellect is capable of understanding things within the universe, then it is capable of understanding reality.

P52: If human intellect can understand reality, then there is a true correspondence between the rational structure of the human mind and the structure of the universe.

C14: Therefore, a true correspondence exists between the rational structure of the human mind and the structure of the universe.

P53: This true correspondence must be explained by exactly one of four exhaustive options: a brute fact, evolutionary epistemology, anthropic selection, or a common rational source.

P54: If the PSR is true, then no aspect of reality can be explained as a brute fact.

P55: The PSR is true (as established in C7).

C15: Therefore, the brute fact explanation is ruled out.

P56: Human comprehension tracks accurate, objective truth (as established in C5).

P57: If natural selection inherently favors survival utility over the discernment of objective truth, then evolutionary epistemology cannot account for a mind that tracks accurate, objective truth.

P58: Natural selection inherently favors survival utility over the discernment of objective truth.

C16: Therefore, the evolutionary epistemology explanation is ruled out.

P59: If an explanation fails to account for the origin of the universe’s rational parameters, it is ruled out as a valid explanation for the correspondence.

P60: Anthropic selection fails to account for the origin of the universe’s rational parameters.

C17: Therefore, the anthropic selection explanation is ruled out.

P61: If options the prior are ruled out, then the explanation must be a common rational source.

P62: If the explanation for the correspondence is a common rational source, then the foundation of human rationality and the foundation of the universe’s rationality originate from that same source.

P63: The common rational source is identical to the singular, self-existent being established in C10.

C18: Therefore, the foundation of human rationality and the foundation of the universe’s rationality are the singular, self-existent being.

Rationality is a Personal Mind

P64: The source of being is the same as rationality; it does not possess rationality as a feature without contradicting its nature as uncaused and independent (according to C10).

P65: Rationality is normative because it defines how we ought to reason.

P66: Normativity cannot be reduced to regularity, as some things occur without any inclination towards logic.

C19: Thus, rational normativity cannot be entirely causal.

P67: Human rational thought is intentional and directed at objective truth.

P68: An effect cannot possess an intrinsic perfection, power, or formal characteristic that is entirely absent from the entirety of its efficient and foundational causes.

P69: A purely physical state exists only as material regularities (mass, charge, chemical potential) that respond to immediate local forces.

P70: Because a physical state lacks internal semantic content, it cannot indicate or comprehend an external target; any apparent “aboutness” it seems to have is derivative, relying entirely on the interpretation of an external observer.

P71: To prevent an endless cycle of interpretation, intentionality requires an unconditioned conscious subject capable of perceiving a semantic target as an object of immediate understanding.

P72: Given that human rational intentionality is a component of reality, it must ultimately be grounded in the self-existent foundation of reality (as noted in C8), and to avoid breaching causal proportion (as discussed in P45), this ultimate foundation must encompass the perfection of intentionality and consciousness within its own nature.

C20: Therefore, the self-existent foundation of rationality cannot be devoid of intention or impersonal in nature.

C21: Hence, the self-existent foundation of rationality must be identified as a mind.

C22: Thus, the self-existent basis of rationality is a conscious subject for whom rationality is an inherent characteristic, rather than an external attribute.

P73: Since this mind represents the singular self-existent foundation, it cannot be composite, temporal, or exhibit a distinction between its essence and attributes, as established in P17, P18, and P19.

C23: This mind is synonymous with its own rationality; it does not possess rationality as a characteristic separate from its essence, but is Rational Being itself, whose essence and existence are one and the same (as per C10).

Essence and Attributes

P74: The self-existent mind is identical to the essence of rationality.

P75: If an entity is identical to the essence of a feature, it cannot possess any limitations or deficiencies in that feature.

P76: An entity that possesses no limitations or deficiencies in rationality possesses maximal intellect.

C24: Therefore, the self-existent mind possesses maximal intellect.

P77: The self-existent mind is the ultimate source of all intelligibility within reality.

P78: If an entity is the ultimate source of a structural characteristic, that characteristic must be entirely encompassed within that entity’s own nature.

P79: An entity whose intrinsic nature entirely encompasses intelligibility is defined as being wholly intelligible.

C25: Therefore, the self-existent mind is wholly intelligible.

P80: If a maximal intellect focuses on a wholly intelligible object, it obtains complete knowledge of that object.

P81: The self-existent mind is a maximal intellect (C24) and is wholly intelligible (C25).

P82: The primary object of the self-existent mind’s focus is its own existence.

P83: Complete knowledge of one’s own existence is defined as “perfect self-knowledge.”

C26: Therefore, the self-existent mind possesses perfect self-knowledge.

P84: The self-existent mind is entirely simple, meaning there is no distinction between its essence and its attributes or actions.

P85: Any characteristic or action within an entirely simple being is identical to its essence, meaning it cannot possess incidental features (accidents).

C27: Therefore, within the self-existent mind, there are no accidents.

P86: Perfect self-knowledge is an intrinsic characteristic of the self-existent mind.

C28: Therefore, the perfect self-knowledge of the self-existent mind is identical to its essence.

P87: The act of self-understanding is the internal operation of perfect self-knowledge.

C29: Therefore, in the self-existent mind, intellect, the act of self-understanding, and essence are one and the same; it is a singular, simple foundation of perfect self-knowing being.

Relational Distinction and Personal Agency

P88: Perfect self-knowledge requires an internal cognitive distinction between the Knower (Subject) and the Known (Object).

P89: The self-existent mind possesses perfect self-knowledge (as established in C26).

P90: Therefore, the self-existent mind contains an internal cognitive distinction between the Knower and the Known.

P91: Every internal distinction within an entity must be either a distinction of parts (substantial division) or a distinction of relations (relational opposition).

P92: The self-existent mind is entirely simple and cannot contain a distinction of parts (as established in C29).

C30: Therefore, the internal distinction between the Knower and the Known in the self-existent mind is strictly a distinction of relations, existing as a relational plurality within a singular, simple essence.

P93: An entity that possesses an intellect, an internal relational distinction of self-knowledge, and freedom of the will is defined as a “personal agent.”

P94: The self-existent mind possesses an intellect and a relational distinction of self-knowledge (C30), and possesses freedom of the will.

P95: If a timeless, simple being possesses freedom of the will, its freedom does not manifest as temporal indecision, but as absolute sovereignty and eternal self-determination free from external coercion.

P96: Absolute sovereignty and eternal self-determination free from external coercion is the definition of “the highest conceivable mode of active, immutable, personal agency.”

C31: Therefore, the self-existent mind possesses the highest conceivable mode of active, immutable, personal agency.

The Generation of the Second Person

P97: As established in C30, the self-existent mind encompasses a real internal distinction of relations between the Knower (Subject) and the Known (Object) within a singular, perfectly simple essence.

P98: The relational term representing the Knower within this eternal act of self-knowledge is defined as the “First Person.”

P99: Because the self-existent mind’s perfect self-knowledge is identical to its simple, self-subsisting essence (as established in C29), the Object Known is not a fleeting thought, but a eternally subsisting intellectual relation.

P100: A “Person” is defined as a subsisting relation of an intellectual nature.

P101: The Object Known is relationally distinct from the Knower (First Person) by virtue of the opposing relationship of being “Known” vs. “Knower.”

P102: The Object Known remains completely identical to the First Person in its undivided, simple essence and substance (as established in C30).

C32: Therefore, the Object Known constitutes a distinct Person, hereafter referred to as the Second Person, who is relationally distinct from the First Person, while remaining wholly identical in undivided substance.

The Procession of the Third Person

P103: Every personal mind possesses an intellect (which knows truth) and a will (which loves and affirms goodness).

P104: The self-existent mind possesses both intellect and will in their entirety (as established in C24 and C31).

P105: An entity devoid of all privation and passive potency is identical to absolute Goodness itself.

P106: The self-existent mind is identical to absolute Goodness itself (as established in C10 and C25).

P107: Because the First Person and Second Person share the identical, simple essence, they both eternally exercise their will in a singular, perfect act of mutual love and affirmation toward their absolute Goodness.

P108: Because the self-existent mind’s essence is identical to its actions (as established in C29), this eternal act of mutual love is not an accident, but a subsisting relation.

P109: According to the established definition, a subsisting relation within an intellectual nature constitutes a “Person” (as established in P100).

P110: The relation of mutual love between the First and Second Person fulfills this definition and is defined as the “Third Person.”

P111: Every distinct person in a simple essence requires a unique relation of opposition (as established in C30). The only available operations in an intellectual nature are the intellect (generating the Second Person via knowledge) and the will (generating the Third Person via love).

P112: Because an intellectual nature has no further irreducible operational dimensions beyond intellect and will, no additional unique relations of opposition can exist without introducing accidental parts or a dependent infinite regress.

C33: Therefore, the self-existent ground necessarily exists as precisely three relational persons: the unoriginate source (First Person), the Person generated by perfect self-knowledge (Second Person), and the bond of mutual love proceeding from their singular will (Third Person).

This Being is God

P113: A non-personal absolute is defined as a rational structure or normative order that lacks an intentional, conscious mind or subject.

P114: The self-existent ultimate ground is an intentional, conscious mind possessing maximal intellect and perfect self-knowledge (as established in C18 and C26).

C34: Therefore, a non-personal absolute is logically impossible as a characterization of the self-existent ground.

P115: As established throughout the preceding arguments, the singular self-existent ground possesses the following unified set of properties: aseity and absolute simplicity (C10), eternity (C10), maximal intellect (C24), perfect self-knowledge (C26), active personal agency (C31), and a triune relational plurality (C33).

P116: The proper noun “God” is philosophically defined as the name for a singular, self-existent, absolutely simple, eternal essence that possesses maximal intellect, perfect self-knowledge, personal agency, and triune relational distinction.

P117: If an entity uniquely and exhaustively satisfies every property criterion of a defined name, then that entity is identical to that name.

C35: Therefore, the self-existent ultimate ground is identical to God.

C36: Therefore, God exists as the singular, simple, eternal, self-aware, triune ultimate foundation of all existence and rationality.

The Necessity of Historical Revelation

P117: God exists as a singular, simple, eternal, personal Mind possessing a triune relational essence of perfect love (as established in C33 and C36).

P118: Contingent rational minds exist, and their foundational capacity for rationality is derived from the divine Mind (as established in C18).

P119: According to the PSR (established in C7), every action or state of affairs originating from the ultimate ground must have a sufficient explanation.

P120: If a personal, intrinsically communicative foundation voluntarily creates contingent rational minds, the sufficient explanation for their creation must align with the foundation’s personal and communicative essence.

P121: Purely structural, mathematical, or physical regularities do not communicate the specific intent, character, or personal will of a personal agent.

P122: If the divine foundation limited its interaction with contingent minds strictly to structural regularities, it would fail to communicate its personal intent, character, or will.

C37: Therefore, the divine foundation cannot maintain permanent epistemic silence toward created rational minds; it must actively communicate its personal nature to them.

C38: Therefore, God must deliberately execute an act of self-revelation to the rational minds He has established.

P123: Human rational reasoning can discover the abstract existence and simple attributes of God (as demonstrated in C1 through C36), but it cannot deduce the specific, free, historical actions or thoughts of an infinite Mind.

C39: Therefore, the specific content of this divine self-revelation cannot be generated from the human perspective; it must be actively supplied by God from His perspective.

P124: Any communication actively supplied by a personal agent into a temporal reality must manifest at a specific time, in a specific location, to specific individuals.

P125: Deism is defined as a philosophical framework that acknowledges the existence of a divine foundation but rejects the existence of a specific, localized historical self-revelation.

C40: Therefore, Deism is incorrect; God is necessarily the author of a particular historical revelation.

The Exhaustive Elimination of Non-Nicene Systems

P126: The true account of reality and revelation must completely align with the essential properties of the ultimate ground established in the preceding stages: strict unicity and simplicity (C10), active personal agency (C31), and a precise triune relational plurality (C33).

P127: Every conceivable worldview or theological description of reality falls into a finite, exhaustive set of structural positions: completely denying the ground (Atheism), multiplying the ground (Polytheism), conflating the ground with composite matter (Pantheism), silencing the ground’s communicative nature (Deism), removing the ground’s subjective mind (Impersonal Theism), denying the ground’s necessary internal relational distinctions (Unitarianism), subordinating the internal relations (Arianism), or rendering the relations temporary (Modalism).

P128: Atheism violates the necessity of the ground (C9); Polytheism violates strict unicity (C10); Pantheism violates absolute simplicity (C10); Deism violates the necessity of historical communication (C40); Impersonal Theism violates necessary subjectivity (C34); and Unitarianism, Arianism, and Modalism violate the eternal relational distinctions of perfect self-knowledge and mutual love (C30, C32, and C33).

P129: Therefore, through comprehensive disjunctive elimination, all non-Trinitarian structural positions are formally ruled out as logically contradictory.

P130: Nicene Trinitarianism is formally defined as the precise framework that affirms a single, simple, eternal, self-existent ground existing as exactly three co-equal, co-eternal, subsistent relational persons within one undivided substance.

P131: The specific, localized historical revelation actively supplied by God within human history (established as necessary in C40) is factually identical to the historical revelation preserved within Nicene Trinitarian Christianity.

C41 (Final Conclusion): Therefore, Nicene Trinitarian Christianity stands as the singular true conception of reality, and its descriptions align perfectly with the structural essence of existence.

Modern Christians have fallen into a state of ignorance in which they hold to the false belief that we ought to love everybody, a belief held out of the desire to follow our Lord’s command to love our neighbour and our enemies. This has led to Christians supporting grave evils and tolerating the destruction of their homelands, and to invoke Christ while doing so. You have likely been told, from atheists and Christians alike, “Oh, you don’t want machete-wielding 80 IQ somali child rapists in your country? Well Christ said to love your enemies!” This way of thinking has produced a spiritually hollow Christianity without a serious moral framework or the ability to defend our faith and our people against those who threaten them. Luckily for us, neither Christ nor Scripture command that we ought to love everyone.

The modernist view of love and hatred is that they are two polar opposites. Love is always good, hatred is always bad. This is not what the Bible teaches. Both love and hatred have a proper role in the divine life, as there is a time to love, and a time to hate (Eccles. 3:8). Hatred when properly understood is a form of love insofar as it is directed at the enemies of the good. If we love that which is good, we should not let the wicked destroy it. To prevent them from doing so, we must destroy them in turn. God hates His enemies because they oppose His glory and seek to destroy what He has created. If God did not hate these people, would that not be destructive towards the good He has created? Paul tells us to “let love be without dissimulation. Abhor that which is evil; cleave to that which is good” (Rom. 12:9). Love cannot be without hypocrisy unless it exists alongside a perfect abhorrence in the face of evil.

Beyond just hating the evil people commit (which most Christians support, I hope), God hates them for committing it. If God hated the evil alone, it would follow that God would not damn the evildoer alongside their deeds. For if the deeds of the wicked were separable from the wicked themselves, would God not seek to separate them? The Bible makes it clear that God hates the evildoer as well as the evil they commit.

To claim that hatred is a sin is to claim that God is sinful, which is a gravely evil thing to claim.

A possible objection is that there are some actions in which they are sins precisely because it is only God who is allowed to act as such. Which is entirely true, however perfect hatred is not one of these.

The most righteous prophets and servants of God express hatred for their enemies consistently throughout the Imprecatory Psalms. Particularly David, who states that he hates those who hate the Lord and prays for their destruction (Ps. 139:21-22; 26:5; 35). Jeremiah prayed for the destruction of his persecutors, asking God to “pull them out like sheep for the slaughter” (Jer. 12:3; 17:18). In the New Testament, Paul calls for anathema unto those who preach a false gospel (Gal. 1:8–9) or do not love the Lord (1 Cor. 16:22). These figures were not free from sin, but their hatred of evildoers cannot be sinful in this context. The Psalms are part of Holy Scripture which constitutes the word of God. Thus, if hatred for the enemies of God were inherently sinful, then large portions of the Bible would be presenting sin as a model for worship, which is impossible.

The primary objection to the claim that God hates some people is found in certain verses that, when understood properly, do not prove the claim that God loves everybody. The most well-known verse is John 3:16, but to understand the true meaning of this verse it must be read in its full context.

Nowhere in the verse does it say that “God loves everybody”. It says that whosoever (not every person, but those that believe, however many they be) believeth should not perish but have eternal life. Verse 15 is always conveniently left out of the equation when this verse is quoted because it is restrictive and does not suit the purpose universalists intend for it.

“For God so loved the world” refers to the fact that Jesus was speaking to a man of the Pharisees, named Nicodemus, who believed that only the Israelites were saved to the exclusion of the rest of the world. John 3:18 and 19 clear up any question about the matter. It says that he that does not believe is condemned already and that even though light (salvation) has come to the world (the whole world, not just the Israelites), men love darkness (sin) rather than light, because their deeds are evil. This does not sound like “God loves everyone” but a pronouncement on the evil of man even when presented with the possibility of salvation.

Furthermore, the Greek word for “world” is “κόσμος (kosmos)”. If “kosmos” meant “every single person”, John would not have used it in 1 John 2:15 to claim that believers should “love not the world (kosmos), neither the things that are in the world”. If “world” means “everybody alive”, then Christians, according to John, should not love anybody. The word “kosmos” in John 3:16 thus does not refer to every single person.

The second most used verse to justify universal love is found in the Second Epistle of Peter:

The verse states that the Lord is not willing that any should perish, but is specifically referring to “us-ward”. Who is us? The beginning of the Epistle states who it is addressed for: “To them that have obtained like precious faith with us through the righteousness of God and our Saviour Jesus Christ.” Thus, the “any” and “all” in this verse is specifically referring to any and all believers, not any and all people in general. The promises of this verse are only merited to those who have faith in God.

Second of all, we know that Scripture cannot contradict itself. If this verse truly taught that God desires the salvation of all people, it would contradict several other verses (Matt. 11:25-26, 13:11; Rom. 9:18, 9:22; Prov 16:4; 1 Pet. 2:8; Jude 1:4; Ex. 4:21, 7:3; 2 Thess. 2:11-12; 1 John 12:40) in which God wills the destruction and damnation of sinners.

The objection to my claim that we ought to emulate God’s hatred in the same way we emulate His love is the biblical commands to love others (Lev. 19:18; Matt. 22:39; Mark 12:31; Luke 10:27; Matt. 5:44; Luke 6:27). However, when we understand the context and intention of these verses they create no problem for the position I have presented.

The first commandment in the Bible to love is found in Leviticus:

The people we are told to love are “the children of thy people” and “thy neighbour”, which in Hebrew is “בְּנֵי עַמֶּךָ” and “רֵעֲךָ”, respectively. “The children of thy people” refers to fellow members of the community or nation, and “thy neighbour” refers to one’s friend, companion, fellow, or associate. This verse does not tell us to “love everyone”, only those of our nation, which in the context of the Bible refers to a group of people sharing a common lineage, language, and culture. Jesus’ application of this is found in the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, and Luke:

Because these verses directly quote Leviticus, we can infer that when Jesus uses “πλησίον”, literally translated as “the one who is near”, He is using it with the same meaning as it is used in Leviticus. Which means that in this verse, Jesus is reaffirming that we ought to love our kinsfolk, but is yet to tell us to “love everyone”.

However, Jesus also provides us with a different commandment, to love our enemies:

I have responded to the claims that these verses support loving everyone in a previous essay, so I will quote that here:

Christ’s command to “love your enemies” was originally written as “ἀγαπᾶτε τοὺς ἐχθροὺς ὑμῶν”. The word used for enemies is “ἐχθροὺς (echthros)” refers to personal adversaries, people who have wronged you or are antagonistic towards you. Jesus did not use the other Greek term for enemy “πολέμιος (polemios)”, which refers to a political or civilisational enemy, usually in the context of war. Jesus never said to love our polemios.

The fact that Christ was silent regarding our polemios tells us that our personal and political enemies operate on entirely different levels, and cannot be treated the same.

Scripture presents us with three types of enemies. First, our personal enemies; echthros. Second, our political enemies; polemios. And last, the enemies of God.

First, it is clear how we ought to treat our personal enemies; with love, kindness, intercession, and forgiveness. Our personal enemies include those who are antagonistic towards us, those who do not love us, or mock our faith. This is a non-negotiable Christian principle. However, we should also be willing to correct those around us when they err, even with force. When Christ expelled the money-lenders from the Temple, that did not betray His command to love our neighbour, but reinforced it. If Christ had let the money-lenders continue, He would have been allowing them to continue sinning, which is no form of love. In correcting them with force, He demonstrated that love of those around us must also require force to save others from their sin.

St. John Chrysostom writes on this matter:

In our personal life, when someone commits a grave sin, we must demonstrate our love by telling them to stop; if they refuse, do not hesitate to use force to make them stop.

Secondly, our political enemies. The ability to identify and subdue those who pose a threat to our civilisation and way of life is necessary for its survival. Modern Christians have given up this ability, and have been taught that we must love those who subvert our culture and destroy our lands.

If the Bible taught that the love and charity we offer to our personal enemies extends to our political enemies, then the Israelites were sinning when they followed God’s command to “smite them, and utterly destroy them; thou shalt make no covenant with them, nor shew mercy unto them” towards the Seven Nations. No forgiveness, charity, or kindness is offered to the political enemies of the Israelite nation. Some may contend that this moral framework was abolished (or “fulfilled”) by Jesus the Christ. But nowhere in the New Testament does it disregard the destruction of our political enemies, only personal ones. Paul reinforces that, on the level of the political, there should be no mercy towards our enemies, by saying that “he [the State] is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil”. However, because our political enemies may be a righteous, Christian enemy, we should not treat them with the same hatred as we treat the enemies of God. Rather, we should simply withhold our charity to enable his defeat and the preservation of our civilisation. Our current political enemies are the people trying to destroy White Christian civilisation.

Lastly, the enemies of God. The enemies of God are offered something worse than destruction. Their actions have merited that they be abhorred by every righteous man and that they may die without the pity of anyone. The enemies of God are as such:

• Those who attempt to rise against the glory of God, and fulfill their demonic lusts (Rom. 8:7; 1 Cor. 10:6; James 1:15).

• Those who hate Christ, and blaspheme Him and His teachings (Judg. 2:13; Rev 18:5; Lev. 18:21; Matt. 12:31-32; Heb. 6:4-6, 10:26-31; 2 Pet. 2:20-22; 1 John 2:22-23; Luke 12:10).

• Those who commit apostasy, and corrupt the faith (Gal. 1:8-9; 1 Cor. 16:2; 2 Pet. 2:1-3; 2 Tim. 3:1-9; Tit. 1:10-16; Rev. 2:6, 2:15; 2 John 1:10-11; Jude 1:4; Matt. 7:15-23)

• Those who serve Satan and seek to destroy the order God created (Rom. 1:18-32; 2 Thess. 2:3-12; 1 Tim. 4:1-3; Rev. 13; Isa. 5:20; Gen. 11:1-9; Deut. 7:1-6).

And finally:

• Those responsible for the death of Christ, for which crime there is no expiation, no indulgence, no pardon possible. (1 Thess. 2:14-16; Matt. 12:14, 26:59, 27:25, 23:33-35; Mark 11:18; Luke 23:23, 19:27; John 5:18, 7:1, 8:37, 8:40, 8:44, 8:59, 10:31, 11:53).

It is not enough to say that we are permitted to hate these people. It is our sacred obligation to do so. For if we do not hate these people, we do not properly demonstrate our love for God. A man who claims to love God but does not hate those who unrepentantly murdered His Son, blaspheme His name, and destroy His order, has only demonstrated that he does not truly love God. Similarly, those who claim to love their kinsmen according to the flesh, yet, in seeking to obey God, are not willing to hate those who wish their destruction, have not pleased God nor their people, but betrayed both.

Within the dissident right there exists a conflict between folkish paganism and Christianity. Pagans will attack Christianity with several claims, some more substantial than others, that I will hopefully prove to be false.

1. “Christianity introduced a foreign ethos to the West that undermined its pagan characteristics”

Christianity is only “foreign” when taken at face value. Something that is universally true ought to be applied in all places, independent of whether such truth originated in a different geographical location. Second of all, the “West”, that is, Faustian Culture, is inherently Christian, and cannot be separated from its Christianity. Paganism is the religion of Apollonian Culture, which died in the 4th century.

The more important claim implied in this argument is that in rejecting pagan ethics, Christianity is fundamentally opposed to the West. However, if such a claim is true, the Crusades, colonisation, Jewish expulsions, Gothic cathedrals, the British Empire, the moon landing, the invention of modern technology, the greatest intellectual traditions, etc., are all the results of a foreign Jewish ethos. It makes absolutely zero sense that such an inferior ethos would produce such a great culture that completely contradicts the virtues it supposedly upholds.

Anyone on the pro-White side, whether Christian or pagan, must admit that the European character is defined by spiritual inwardness, infinite striving and restlessness, faith, and humility before the divine. In Tacitus’ “Germania”, he describes the Germanic people as chaste and faithful in marriage, hospitable towards others, honest, and without “trickery or cunning”. According to Oswald Spengler, the Europeans possess the striving for the infinite, which is required for any true desire for God, and Hegel describes the Germanic Spirit as the final carrier of the Weltgeist, arguing that the inner freedom of Christianity (as compared to the legalism of other religions), is perfectly fit for the European people. These characteristics of the Europeans, even prior to Christianity, show that the Europeans are better fit for the ethical and spiritual character of the Christian religion than of the Might Makes Right character of paganism.

Some pagans that I do respect, such as Jonathan Bowden, have claimed that “a crusader is a pagan with a cross on”, meaning that the Western achievements made under the guise of Christianity were, on a much deeper level, the expression of a pagan ethos rather than a Christian one. However, this requires you to ignore the deep Christian motivations of such achievements and claim they are pagan because paganism = good stuff, Western achievements = good stuff, therefore Western achievements = pagan. When in reality, Western achievements were almost entirely built upon the basis of Christian thought. The Jewish expulsions happened because Christian Europe believed that the Jews were responsible for the death of Christ. Scientific discoveries, modern technology, philosophy, political systems, etc., were built as a desire to understand God's creation, a fundamental characteristic of Faustianism.

Pagan Europe on the other hand, whilst having its merits, was fundamentally inferior to Christian Europe.

Pederasty was very common in pagan Greece and Rome and was deemed a socially acceptable relationship. In Europe, sodomy was illegal and punished by death, with the last execution taking place in the 19th century. This was driven by the Christian condemnation of homosexual behaviour found clearly in Scripture.

Pagans are unable to explain why, if Judaism created Christianity, why Jews were expelled, subjugated, converted and killed in pogroms by Christians under Christian governments. Jews must be pretty retarded if they created a religion to destroy the West, and then that religion led to the expansion of the West worldwide and almost the entire destruction of the Jewish people. In contrast, in the Roman Empire, Judaism was largely a legally protected and tolerated religion. Just because pagans got BTFO’d by Christians doesn't make Christianity Jewish.

2. “Christianity is slave morality”

This argument only matters if, when Christianity is taken into practice, it exhibits some sort of slavish moralism. However, even if we conceded that Christianity taught slave morality, it has not been shown anywhere in Christian culture for the past 2000 years. As I previously mentioned, Christian culture produced colonial expansion of 90% of the globe, incredible architecture, literature, art, etc. Was Hernan Cortés a slave? What about Cecil Rhodes, St. Olga, John Mason, General E. Lee, Ferdinand II, etc.? These were deeply Christian people who did not show in the slightest any slave morals. None of such figures would arise from a slavish morality.

Slave morality is only found in modern Christianity. Modern Christianity is a complete distortion of Christian beliefs and has nothing in common with the past 2000 years of Christendom. The degeneracy of modern Christianity are the result of modernity and exist within all elements of society rather than just in Christianity. Pagans using the cuckery of modern Christianity as an argument works against paganism even more. According to several sources, 30-40% of pagans identifying as LGBTQ, compared to only 2% of Christians. Similarly, 93% of pagans support pro-LGBTQ policies, and paganism is widely regarded as the most inclusive religion with regards to LGBTQ people.

Even if Christianity taught such a morality, it is not reasonably demonstrated in Christian culture, and thus, this argument can only serve as a critique of Christian teachings, so now I will show that Christian teachings do not support slave morality.

The most obvious example of supposed Christian slave morality is Christ's command to “turn the other cheek”. In first-century Judaea, a slap on the right cheek meant a backhanded insult, a gesture of humiliation. By turning the other cheek, Christ taught His disciples not to respond with vengeance, but to refuse humiliation and retain dignity. Christ did not preach surrender to insult as pagans like to claim. Turning the other cheek is about demonstrating self-mastery through refusing to engage in petty fights or arguments, not being a doormat to those around you.

Another one is “blessed are the meek, for they shall inherit the earth”. The Greek word for meek is praus. Praus refers to strength under control, and was commonly used to describe warhorses that brought their power under control outside of the battlefield. Moses was called the most praus man on earth in Numbers chapter 12. Moses also killed an Egyptian, massacred Midianite men and took their women and children captive, and executed 3000 people for idolatry. If he did all this and was still meek, this shows that violence, war, killing, and conquest are, under certain circumstances, compatible with meekness.

Christ’s command to “love your enemies” was originally written as “ἀγαπᾶτε τοὺς ἐχθροὺς ὑμῶν”. The word used for enemies is “ἐχθροὺς (echthros)” refers to personal adversaries, people who have wronged you or are antagonistic towards you. Jesus did not use the other Greek term for enemy “πολέμιος (polemios)”, which refers to a political or civilisational enemy, usually in the context of war. Jesus never said to love our polemios.

What the Bible does tell us is that, although we ought to love our own enemies, we ought to hate the enemies of God. In Psalm 139, David very explicitly says that he hates the enemies (echthros) of God, not mere opposition or condemnation, but rather pure and perfect hatred of those who speak wickedly of the Lord and reject Him. Not only does he say he hates them, but he also asks God to slay them. This same sentiment is expressed in Luke 19:27, when Jesus says that “the enemies of me” (tous echthrous mou) should be brought before Him and slayed. Even within the context of the Parable of the Ten Minas, to “slay” the enemies of Christ requires a substantial withholding of love from them; e.g., hatred of them.

If we ought to hate the enemies of God, we must hate those responsible for the death of Christ, for which crime there is no expiation, no indulgence, no pardon possible. (Matthew 12:14, Luke 13:31, Matthew 26:59, Mark 11:18, Luke 23:23, John 5:18, 7:1, 8:37, 8:40, 8:59, 10:31, 11:53).

Finally, the Bible describes the Second Coming as such in the book of Revelation:

Personally, I think to categorise Christianity into either master or slave morality is an oversimplification, because Christianity transcends both. God created a dual nature to existence, represented by the Lamb and the Lion. The Lamb represents innocence, and the Lion represents savagery. Both parts are necessary and perfect. Jesus is both the Lamb and the Lion. He came as the Lamb, and will return as the Lion.

3. “You worship a Jew”

Whether or not Jesus Christ was ethnically a Jew to me is irrelevant, for the reason that the actions and teachings of Jesus are the complete antithesis of the Jewish ethos. But first I will present to arguments in favour of Jesus not being an ethnic Jew. Jesus was Levantine, meaning He was part of the phenotypic and ancestral cluster that the ancient Levantine people were from. If we discern the genetics of the Levantine people we can get a better understanding of the ethnicity of Jesus.

Ancient Levantine populations belong to the Western Eurasian genetic cluster, sharing substantial Anatolian Neolithic Farmer ancestry with ancient European populations. Ancient Greeks derived roughly half their ancestry from the same Neolithic expansion out of the Fertile Crescent that produced Levantine populations, meaning that their shared ancestry would have produced phenotypic overlap particularly in skin tone, hair colour range, and facial structure.

Corpus Papyrorum Raineri Volume XVIII recorded physical descriptions of individuals for identification purposes, which show that of 12 Judaeans described, 91.66% were recorded as light complexioned versus 56.54% of 91 non-Judaeans in the same corpus, with zero Judaeans recorded as dark complexioned.

Furthermore, in Josephus’ “Antiquities of the Jews”, he mentions that Judaeans wanted to blend in with the Greek population when they entered a gymnasium. Because the Greek gymnasiums were nude, the Judaeans would not have been able to hide their circumcisions from those around them. Josephus records that the Judaeans “hid the circumcision of their genitals, that even when they were naked they might appear to be Greeks.” If, when hiding their circumcisions, they were able to appear like Greeks, we can gather that there was no large phenotypic difference between early Judaean and Greek populations.

Depictions of ancient Levantine people and Jesus Himself only prove my previous claims.

Now onto my main point. The actions and teachings of Jesus are entirely opposed to the teachings of Judaism, which is why they killed Him.

Throughout His life, death, and teachings, Jesus created a new form of morality that is almost identical to the morality of Faustian Culture and the complete opposite of Magean culture. The characteristics of Faustian culture, or more broadly the White race, are deep spiritualism, idealism, strong faith, and constant striving for the divine. The Magean people people are concerned more with legalism and a materialistic adherence to strict laws. For example, Jews believe that if you follow the 613 commandments of the Torah, you will be saved. Christianity teaches that Jesus fulfilled these laws, and that the only thing required for salvation is faith in Him.

It is even stated by some pagans that Jesus Christ was Aryan. Savitri Devi argued in favour of Jesus in “Paul of Tarsus, or Christianity and Jewry” by saying that:

The New Testament makes the current status of the Jews very clear:

So does the writings of the Church Fathers:

And of the Protestant Reformers:

Lastly, even if Jesus Christ is a Jew, He is an infinitely greater moral example for the White race than any pagan “god”. The majority of pagan gods were spiteful losers, sexual degenerates, or easily offended, overly emotional sociopaths with zero redeeming qualities. Odinists will look at you with a straight face and tell you that you worship a Jew, as if their god wasn't a crossdresser who hung himself. Jesus Christ, on the other hand, is the perfect example that every man should aspire to. Christ is a leader. He is the King of Kings, made man and willing to suffer great pain out of His love for mankind, not some guy on top of a mountain that controls the equivalent of someone’s backyard.

4. “Christian universalism contradicts ethnic loyalty”

Historically, Christianity has only been universalist with regards to salvation. The meaning of verses such as Galatians 3:28 is that one’s race, class, or sex does not contribute nor detriment one’s chance at salvation. If it were abolishing those categories outright, this verse would make no sense. The reason it does is that apart from salvation, it was obvious to everyone how much these categories mattered. This verse affirms that race, class, and sex are meaningful distinctions, which is why they had to be removed from the context of salvation.

Apart from salvation, the Bible affirms that nations and ethnic distinctions ought to be preserved through separation. God chose to separate humanity into different ethnic and linguistic groups, “having determined allotted periods and the boundaries of their dwelling place” in Genesis 11 and Acts 17:26. If we deny this and try to amalgamate all of humanity by rejecting the sanctity of these distinctions, we are rejecting God’s will.

If God treated humanity as an undiffirentiated mass, He would not bless and curse bloodlines and ethnic groups. Following the flood, the sons of Noah: Ham, Japheth, and Shem, are the progenitors of three distinct groups: Africans, Europeans, and Asians, respectively.

In Genesis 9, it is recorded that Ham sinned against his father Noah by “seeing his nakedness”. For this, Noah cursed the offspring of Ham to be in servitude to his brothers, Shem and Japheth, whom he blesses.

Genesis 9:25 says “cursed be Canaan” but verse 22 establishes the sin was committed by Ham, the father of Canaan. Ezekiel 18:20 says that “The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son: the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him.” Meaning that although the name of Canaan was used, the curse fell on Ham. Canaan is used as he is the exemplar of his father’s wickedness and, thus, associated with his father dispositionally and morally, and secondly, because Canaan is most relevant to the Biblical narrative (and so he is mentioned specifically, even though all of Ham is cursed).

Augustine wrote in The City of God that “Ham was cursed in the person of his son”, and that Canaan was the “the son in whose person Ham was cursed.” Martin Luther explain why the curse fell upon Ham, yet the name Canaan was used, stating:

It follows from Ham’s curse that his descendants must also be cursed. Genesis 9 says that the curse and blessings fall “unto his brethren”. What this means for my argument is that the descendants of Ham (the Africans and the Canaanites) bear the consequences of their progenitors sin, and the Japhethites (the Indo-Europeans) and Shemites (the Levantines) bear the good fruits of their progenitors, which entirely undercuts the claim that Christianity is a universalist religion.

In Romans 9, Paul states that he was willing to be accursed from Christ for his kinsmen according to the flesh. This shows that Paul had unapologetic loyalty to those to whom he was related by blood; his race, to the extent that he would be willing to be damned for their salvation.

Moreover, the Apostle Paul tells his disciple Timothy that “if any provide not for his own, and especially for those of his own house, he hath denied the faith, and is worse than an infidel.” This means that we have greater duty to our brethren related by blood than to a stranger; our familial obligations radiate outward in concentric loyalties. Our loyalty to humanity is smaller than our loyalty towards our race, which is smaller than our loyalty to our ethnic group, which is smaller than our loyalty to our community, which is smaller than our loyalty to our family, whom we have the greatest loyalty to. Because our race and ethnic group are our extended family, to honour one’s race and ancestors and to stay loyal to them is obedience to the fifth commandment, and a failure to act as such is a sin worse than unbelief.

For more arguments on Christian Ethnonationalism, read this essay:

In conclusion, pagan attacks on Christian belief rely upon a false image of Christ and the Christian religion and fail on almost every ground when tested against the actual teachings of Christianity and the history of Christendom.

What is unfortunate is that most dissident Christians and pagans share the same goals: a White Europe, an end to Jewish power, remigration etc., but due to the pagan’s inability to analyse Christianity beyond how it appears at face value, they have only divided the pro-White movement that was broadly a Christian one before the late 20th century, and there is no reason why it can’t be again.

In recent years, there has been an increase in people converting to the Christian faith. However, there is no singular “Christian faith”; instead, there are several different denominations from which one must choose when deciding to devote one’s life to Christ. This choice will affect every aspect of how you understand Christianity itself and cannot be made based on aesthetics or personal convictions. This essay will serve as a defence of why the magisterial Protestantism that arose from the 16th-century Reformation is the superior choice.

To establish that Protestantism has the greatest understanding of Christianity, we must first establish why we ought not convert to the two primary alternatives: Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy.

The Errors of the Roman Church

The core doctrine of the Catholic Church that separates them from all others is the doctrine of the papacy. The Pope is defined as the Vicar of Christ, and His representative on earth, with full, supreme, and universal power over the whole Church, that is protected from error by the Holy Ghost when he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole Church. If one of these points is proven to be false, then the Romish doctrine of the papacy cannot be true.

On the central claim, that the Pope of Rome holds universal jurisdiction over the entire Church. This means that, hypothetically, the Pope could contradict every other Bishop, and they would still be required to submit to him. The Roman Catholic Church has made it explicitly clear that no man can judge the Pope. Canon 1404 states, “The First See is judged by no one”, and the papal encyclical Unam Sanctam states, “…if the highest power of all err, it can be judged only by God, and not by man”. However, this directly contradicts Paul’s rebuke of Peter, the first Pope according to Catholic doctrine. Galatians 2:11-14 states:

But when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed.

For before that certain came from James, he did eat with the Gentiles: but when they were come, he withdrew and separated himself, fearing them which were of the circumcision.

And the other Jews dissembled likewise with him; insomuch that Barnabas also was carried away with their dissimulation.

But when I saw that they walked not uprightly according to the truth of the gospel, I said unto Peter before them all, If thou, being a Jew, livest after the manner of Gentiles, and not as do the Jews, why compellest thou the Gentiles to live as do the Jews?

The Apostle Paul publicly rebuked Peter to his face for refusing to eat with Gentiles, and throughout the entire New Testament, there is a striking absence of any Petrine supremacy that would have been known by Paul. This shows that whilst Peter had significant authority with regard to the other apostles, he was able to be corrected by them when he fell into error.

The Bible verse upon which the foundations of the Papacy rest is Matthew 16:17-19.

And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.

And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

The catholic interpretation of this is that Peter is the rock upon which Christ will build His Church, and in Christ giving him the keys to Heaven, he is thereby established as supreme governor over the other Apostles.

The keys of heaven give the authority to “bind and loose” that which will be bound and loosed in Heaven. However, that very same authority is given to all the Apostles two chapters later in Matthew 18:18, and is thus not unique to Peter, nor does it give us any indication of his supremacy.

Furthermore, the context of Jesus having called Peter the rock is that He had previously asked His disciples: But whom say ye that I am? Peter responded, saying, “Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.” Jesus responds with what is stated in Matthew 16:17-18. His reference to “the rock” is regarding Peter’s previous confession of faith he had made, not Peter himself.

There is no biblical or historical indication that the Church ought to be structured monarchically. When Jesus addresses dealing with sin or conflict within the Church in Matthew 18:15-20, the final arbiter is “the Church” as a whole, not any singular individual. This appeal to the community over one man is found constantly in the Bible when disputes are being resolved. In Acts 15, when the debate over whether Gentiles were required to follow the Law of Moses to be saved or not was being undertaken, the final decision was made collectively. Whilst Peter did settle the debate, he did not demonstrate the same unilateral supremacy that the Pope does.

This complete lack of any supreme monarch over the Church is revealed in the structure of the early Church. The early Christians believed that people in authority were the first among equals, and it was very clear that no one man had infallible hegemony over the entire Church. Each community was led by a bishop, who acted as the chief administrator and guardian of teaching. Supporting the bishop was a council of Elders (or, Presbyters) who handled spiritual guidance and local leadership, and Deacons, who served as assistants to Bishops and Elders, primarily dealing with charitable distribution to the poor, widows, and orphans. The Bishop of Rome in the patristic period exercised a primacy of honour among equals, not the universal jurisdiction claimed in Vatican I. He has, throughout history, granted himself increasing power over time, going from the Bishop of Rome, to having regional jurisdiction over the West, to having universal jurisdiction, to having infallibility when speaking ex cathedra.

Even early Popes such as Gregory I opposed the universal jurisdiction of the Pope, stating that “whosoever calls himself, or desires to be called, Universal Priest, is in his elation the precursor of Antichrist”, whilst not denying the primacy of the Holy See.

Now onto the second point, the Catholic Church, and more importantly, the Pope, is infallible under certain conditions. If this were to be true, we would expect that these infallible authorities would never contradict one another. According to the Law of Noncontradiction, if A and B are both true, A cannot contradict B. However, the Roman Church has contradicted itself when defining infallible doctrine. The most glaring contradiction is Rome’s position on salvation outside the Catholic Church. It was infallibly stated in the Council of Florence that:

…all those who are outside the catholic church, not only pagans but also Jews or heretics and schismatics, cannot share in eternal life and will go into the everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless they are joined to the catholic church before the end of their lives; that the unity of the ecclesiastical body is of such importance that only for those who abide in it do the church’s sacraments contribute to salvation and do fasts, almsgiving and other works of piety and practices of the Christian militia produce eternal rewards; and that nobody can be saved, no matter how much he has given away in alms and even if he has shed his blood in the name of Christ, unless he has persevered in the bosom and the unity of the catholic church.

This infallibly states very clearly that not only non-Christians go to hell, but also Christians of different denominations, including all Protestant and Orthodox Christians. However, this contradicts what is stated in Vatican II:

But the plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator. In the first place amongst these there are the Muslims, who, professing to hold the faith of Abraham, along with us adore the one and merciful God, who on the last day will judge mankind.

The Church regards with esteem also the Moslems. They adore the one God, living and subsisting in Himself; merciful and all-powerful, the Creator of heaven and earth, who has spoken to men; they take pains to submit wholeheartedly to even His inscrutable decrees, just as Abraham, with whom the faith of Islam takes pleasure in linking itself, submitted to God. Though they do not acknowledge Jesus as God, they revere Him as a prophet. They also honor Mary, His virgin Mother; at times they even call on her with devotion. In addition, they await the day of judgment when God will render their deserts to all those who have been raised up from the dead. Finally, they value the moral life and worship God especially through prayer, almsgiving and fasting.

This clearly contradicts the Vatican’s previous statements about salvation outside the Catholic Church, of which there is none. An even more blatant infallible contradiction was when Pope Francis canonised the 21 Coptic Christian Martyrs of Libya. The Coptic Orthodox Church adheres to the heresy of Miaphysitism, they deny the Papacy and reject the Filioque. They schismed from the Catholic and Orthodox churches in the Council of Chalcedon, which defined Jesus as having two natures. Canonisation officially declares someone as a saint, that is in heaven. But according to the Council of Florence, neither heretics nor schismatics can be saved, even if they shed their blood for Christ, as did the Coptic martyrs.

Therefore, the Roman Catholic Church cannot claim to be infallible, as an infallible authority cannot contradict itself infallibly, nor is its institution of the Papacy a valid one, according to Scripture and history. Thus, the Catholic Church required the change that it was offered by the reformers.

However, Protestantism is not the only alternative to Catholicism. We first must deal with Eastern Orthodoxy before moving on to why Protestantism is preferable to either.

The Problems with Eastern Theology

The problem with Orthodoxy is not in its church structure, as it is much closer to traditional Protestantism, but in its theology. The most notable theological difference between east and west is the Filioque clause.

The Filioque means “and the Son” in Latin, and it refers to the Holy Ghost proceeding from the Father and the Son, and not just the Father alone. It was added in 589 AD to combat the Arian heresy. The Arians believed that Jesus was not God, but a creation of Him. If it were affirmed that the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Father and the Son, it would affirm His divinity. So the West changed the part of the original Nicene Creed that mentions the Holy Ghost from “qui ex Patre procedit” (who proceeds from the Father) to “qui ex Patre Filioque procedit” (who proceeds from the Father and the Son).

So what does the Bible say? The Bible makes it overwhelmingly clear that the Holy Ghost proceeds from not just the Father but also the Son.

Romans 8:9 “But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his.”

Galatians 4:6 “And because ye are sons, God hath sent forth the Spirit of his Son into your hearts, crying, Abba, Father.”

John 15:26 “But when the Comforter is come, whom I will send unto you from the Father, even the Spirit of truth, which proceedeth from the Father, he shall testify of me.”

John 16:7 “Nevertheless I tell you the truth; It is expedient for you that I go away: for if I go not away, the Comforter will not come unto you; but if I depart, I will send him unto you.”

John 20:22 “And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and saith unto them, Receive ye the Holy Ghost.”

John 14:16-17 “And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever; Even the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him: but ye know him; for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you.”

John 14:26 “But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.”

John 16:13-15 “Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come. He shall glorify me: for he shall receive of mine, and shall shew it unto you. All things that the Father hath are mine: therefore said I, that he shall take of mine, and shall shew it unto you.”

Acts 2:33 “Therefore being by the right hand of God exalted, and having received of the Father the promise of the Holy Ghost, he hath shed forth this, which ye now see and hear.”

Philippians 1:19 “For I know that this shall turn to my salvation through your prayer, and the supply of the Spirit of Jesus Christ.”

1 Peter 1:11 “Searching what, or what manner of time the Spirit of Christ which was in them did signify, when it testified beforehand the sufferings of Christ, and the glory that should follow.”

Proverbs 1:23 “Turn you at my reproof: behold, I will pour out my spirit unto you, I will make known my words unto you.”

Revelation 22:1 “And he shewed me a pure river of water of life, clear as crystal, proceeding out of the throne of God and of the Lamb.”

The three main arguments against the Filioque are these:
1. The Filioque was an addition to the Nicene Creed unknown to the Church Fathers.
2. Passages such as John 15:26 oppose the Filioque clause.
3. The Filioque denies the Father as the first principle of the life of the Godhead, and in so doing contradicts His Monarchy.

On the first claim, neither creed used by both the West and the East in 1054 was the original Nicene Creed. Both of them come from the First Council of Constantinople and are modifications of the original Nicene Creed. Nor was the Filioque foreign to the Church Fathers. To prove this to be true, here is a long list of quotes from Church Fathers and the Early Church in which the Filioque clause is clearly supported:

Tertullian

“I believe that the Spirit proceeds not otherwise than from the Father through the Son” (Against Praxeas 4:1 [A.D. 216]).

Origen

“We believe, however, that there are three persons: the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit; and we believe none to be unbegotten except the Father. We admit, as more pious and true, that all things were produced through the Word, and that the Holy Spirit is the most excellent and the first in order of all that was produced by the Father through Christ” (Commentaries on John 2:6 [A.D. 229]).

Gregory the Wonderworker

“[There is] one Holy Spirit, having substance from God, and who is manifested through the Son; image of the Son, perfect of the perfect; life, the cause of living; holy fountain; sanctity, the dispenser of sanctification; in whom is manifested God the Father who is above all and in all, and God the Son who is through all. Perfect Trinity, in glory and eternity and sovereignty neither divided nor estranged” (Confession of Faith [A.D. 265]).

Hilary of Poitiers

“Concerning the Holy Spirit . . . it is not necessary to speak of him who must be acknowledged, who is from the Father and the Son, his sources” (The Trinity 2:29 [A.D. 357]).

“In the fact that before times eternal your [the Father’s] only-begotten [Son] was born of you, when we put an end to every ambiguity of words and difficulty of understanding, there remains only this: he was born. So too, even if I do not g.asp it in my understanding, I hold fast in my consciousness to the fact that your Holy Spirit is from you through him” (ibid., 12:56).

Didymus the Blind

“As we have understood discussions . . . about the incorporeal natures, so too it is now to be recognized that the Holy Spirit receives from the Son that which he was of his own nature. . . . So too the Son is said to receive from the Father the very things by which he subsists. For neither has the Son anything else except those things given him by the Father, nor has the Holy Spirit any other substance than that given him by the Son” (The Holy Spirit 37 [A.D. 362]).

Epiphanius of Salamis

“The Father always existed and the Son always existed, and the Spirit breathes from the Father and the Son” (The Man Well-Anchored 75 [A.D. 374]).

Basil The Great

“Through the Son, who is one, he [the Holy Spirit] is joined to the Father, one who is one, and by himself completes the Blessed Trinity” (The Holy Spirit 18:45 [A.D. 375]).

“[T]he goodness of [the divine] nature, the holiness of [that] nature, and the royal dignity reach from the Father through the only-begotten [Son] to the Holy Spirit. Since we confess the persons in this manner, there is no infringing upon the holy dogma of the monarchy” (ibid., 18:47).

Ambrose of Milan

“Just as the Father is the fount of life, so too, there are many who have stated that the Son is designated as the fount of life. It is said, for example that with you, Almighty God, your Son is the fount of life, that is, the fount of the Holy Spirit” (The Holy Spirit 1:15:152 [A.D. 381]).

“The Holy Spirit, when he proceeds from the Father and the Son, does not separate himself from the Father and does not separate himself from the Son” (ibid., 1:2:120).

Gregory of Nyssa

“[The] Father conveys the notion of unoriginate, unbegotten, and Father always; the only-begotten Son is understood along with the Father, coming from him but inseparably joined to him. Through the Son and with the Father, immediately and before any vague and unfounded concept interposes between them, the Holy Spirit is also perceived conjointly” (Against Eunomius 1 [A.D. 382]).

The Athanasian Creed

“[W]e venerate one God in the Trinity, and the Trinity in oneness. . . . The Father was not made nor created nor begotten by anyone. The Son is from the Father alone, not made nor created, but begotten. The Holy Spirit is from the Father and the Son, not made nor created nor begotten, but proceeding” (Athanasian Creed [A.D. 400]).

Augustine

“[I]t must be confessed that the Father and the Son are the principle of the Holy Spirit, not two principles, but just as the Father and the Son are one God . . . relative to the Holy Spirit, they are one principle” (The Trinity 5:14:15 [A.D. 408]).

“[The one] from whom principally the Holy Spirit proceeds is called God the Father. I have added the term ‘principally’ because the Holy Spirit is found to proceed also from the Son” (ibid., 15:17:29).

“Why, then, should we not believe that the Holy Spirit proceeds also from the Son, when he is the Spirit also of the Son? For if the Holy Spirit did not proceed from him, when he showed himself to his disciples after his resurrection he would not have breathed upon them, saying, ‘Receive the Holy Spirit’ [John 20:22]. For what else did he signify by that breathing upon them except that the Holy Spirit proceeds also from him” (Homilies on John 99:8 [A.D. 416]).

Cyril of Alexandria

“Since the Holy Spirit when he is in us effects our being conformed to God, and he actually proceeds from the Father and Son, it is abundantly clear that he is of the divine essence, in it in essence and proceeding from it” (Treasury of the Holy Trinity, thesis 34 [A.D. 424]).

“[T]he Holy Spirit flows from the Father in the Son” (ibid.).

Council of Toledo

“We believe in one true God, Father and Son and Holy Spirit, maker of the visible and the invisible. . . . The Spirit is also the Paraclete, who is himself neither the Father nor the Son, but proceeding from the Father and the Son. Therefore the Father is unbegotten, the Son is begotten, the Paraclete is not begotten but proceeding from the Father and the Son” (First Council of Toledo [A.D. 400]).

Fulgence of Ruspe

“Hold most firmly and never doubt in the least that the only God the Son, who is one person of the Trinity, is the Son of the only God the Father; but the Holy Spirit himself also one person of the Trinity, is Spirit not of the Father only, but of Father and of Son together” (The Rule of Faith 53 [A.D. 524]).

“Hold most firmly and never doubt in the least that the same Holy Spirit who is Spirit of the Father and of the Son, proceeds from the Father and the Son” (ibid., 54).

John Damascene

“Likewise we believe also in one Holy Spirit, the Lord and giver of life . . . in all things like to the Father and Son; proceeding from the Father and communicated through the Son” (Exposition of the Orthodox Faith 8 [A.D. 712]).

“And the Holy Spirit is the power of the Father revealing the hidden mysteries of his divinity, proceeding from the Father through the Son in a manner known to himself, but different from that of generation” (ibid., 12).

“I say that God is always Father since he has always his Word [the Son] coming from himself and, through his Word, the Spirit issuing from him” (Dialogue Against the Manicheans 5 [A.D. 728]).

Maximus the Confessor

“By nature the Holy Spirit in his being takes substantially his origin from the Father through the Son who is begotten” (Questions to Thalassium 63 [A.D. 630–633]).

Council of Nicaea II

“We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord and giver of life, proceeding from the Father through the Son” (Profession of Faith [A.D. 787]).

The Filioque was far from a newly introduced idea in 589 AD.

On the second point, that John 15:26 disproves the Filioque. Any Orthodox Christian who claims this must first attest to every other Bible verse that shows clear support. On the verse itself, it states that “the Spirit of truth” proceeds from the Father and never excludes It also proceeding. There is no Bible verse that explicitly excludes the Holy Ghost as proceeding from the Son. Jesus says in the very same verse that “when the Comforter is come, whom I will send unto you from the Father”. If the Son has the authority to send the Holy Ghost, He must have a hypostatic relation to It.

Onto the final and most substantive claim: the Filioque undermines the Monarchy of the Father. Whilst it is true that the Father is the source of the Trinity, the procession of the Holy Ghost from the Son does not undermine His headship. The Holy Ghost proceeds from the Father principally; however, in John 16:15, Jesus says that “All things that the Father hath are mine”. If this is true, then the Father’s sending forth of the Holy Ghost must also belong to the Son, yet only logically secondary to the Holy Ghost’s procession from the Father, as not to undermine the Father’s headship.

Therefore, if the defining characteristic of Orthodoxy is the rejection of the Filioque, then, according to the evidence presented, to wilfully become Orthodox is a rejection of what Scripture has established.

Sola Scriptura

I have hopefully proven that as Christians, we ought to reject the Papacy and accept the Filioque. However, in doing so, I have yet to establish the supremacy of Protestantism. I will do as such in attempting to prove the doctrine of Sola Scriptura.

Protestantism is objectively the most diverse collective of denominations. It ranges from Independent Fundamental Baptists to Anglo-Catholics; the one principle that unites them all is Sola Scriptura. Sola Scriptura is often misrepresented by catholics and other ecclesialists as Nuda Scriptura, that is, the belief that Scripture is the only rule of faith, as compared to Sola Scriptura, which posits that Scripture is the only infallible rule of faith, above others such as the Church and tradition, which are fallible yet still authorities.

The nature of Scripture itself requires that it be the highest form of authority. The rule of faith for the Church must attempt to be as close to the teachings of the Apostles as possible, otherwise it has strayed from the teachings of Christ. Both Holy Tradition and the Holy Magisterium rely on what someone else has said about the Apostles to discern what the Apostles have said themselves. In the case of Tradition, it gains its reliability through relying on what other people have been saying about the teachings of the Apostles throughout the history of the Church. If we believe the Magisterium when it interprets Tradition, we are relying upon what a body of people has said about what another body of people has said about what the Apostles said about what Christ said.

When discerning what someone has said, going directly to what they have said themselves is more valuable than relying upon what someone else has said they said. Thus, in discerning what the Apostles said, we must first go to their own convictions before going to the hearsay of Tradition or the Magisterium. The teachings of the Apostles are directly found in Scripture, and thus we must rely upon the Holy Scriptures as the highest authority before turning to what secondary sources have said.

This is also made clear in Scripture itself.

1 Corinthians 4:6 “And these things, brethren, I have in a figure transferred to myself and to Apollos for your sakes; that ye might learn in us not to think of men above that which is written, that no one of you be puffed up for one against another.”

Not placing man above what is written implies that all human authority must be subject to what is written. This similar idea is expressed by St. Gregory of Nyssa in his work “On the Soul and the Resurrection”

“...we make the Holy Scriptures the rule and measure of every tenet; we necessarily fix our eyes upon that, and approve that alone which may be made to harmonise with the intention of those writings.”

Paul rebukes the Corinthian church for placing their trust in human authorities above the authority of Scripture, stating in 1 Corinthians 3:5-9:

Who then is Paul, and who is Apollos, but ministers by whom ye believed, even as the Lord gave to every man?

I have planted, Apollos watered; but God gave the increase.

So then neither is he that planteth any thing, neither he that watereth; but God that giveth the increase.

Now he that planteth and he that watereth are one: and every man shall receive his own reward according to his own labour.

For we are labourers together with God: ye are God’s husbandry, ye are God’s building.

Furthermore, Timothy 3:16-17 states the following with regard to Scripture:

All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.

“Thoroughly furnished” means to be completely equipped for any given task. If Scripture thoroughly furnishes unto all good works, nothing additional is necessary for that furnishing. The Magisterium or Tradition would only be necessary for furnishing unto all good works if Scripture were insufficient. Thus, the magisterium and tradition are not necessary in this regard, and therefore are inferior to Scripture.

Moreover, the Greek word used for “inspiration of God” is theopneustos, meaning God-breathed. This term is applied only to Scripture in the Bible, and is given to no human authority.

Throughout scripture, authorities, even those instituted by God, err. Saul disobeyed God’s command to destroy the Amalekites, David committed adultery with Bathsheba and had her husband murdered to cover it up, Solomon intermarried with foreign pagans, which led him to build idols. Even within the priesthood, Aaron helped build the Golden Calf whilst Moses was on Mount Sinai, Nadab and Abihu erred in their sacrifice of foreign fire before the Lord, Hophni and Phinehas appropriated the best portion of sacrifices for themselves, and had sexual relations with the sanctuary’s women.

There is no indication that any authority instituted by God is unable to err, even under certain conditions. Even in the New Testament, the actions of the Apostles demonstrate in no way that they were free from error in their teachings; even Peter, the rock upon which the Church was built, acted like a Judaizer and had to be corrected by Paul.

All of this makes sense when considering human nature. All humans have fallen short of the glory of God, with the exception of Jesus Christ, and thus no human can claim to be protected from error by God when they speak.

Each time a God-instituted authority errs, there is a common pattern in how they are corrected: by the Word of God spoken through the prophets. Of course, we don’t have these prophets anymore, but we do have their Word, preserved in the canon of the Holy Bible. Thus, we can infer that when the Church falls into error or even heresy, it must be reformed by the Word of God spoken through the prophets and preserved in Scripture.

This is what occurred in the 16th century Reformation. The Catholic Church had fallen into the error of papalism and required a reformation that realigned it with true doctrine established in Scripture. In attempting to do so, the reformers were excommunicated and had to establish their own Churches that are in accordance with that which God has established, and always accountable to Him.

Galatians 1:8 “But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.”

The following essay was originally posted on January 19, 2011, on “Faith and Heritage”

Ethno-nationalism is a belief system that affirms a traditional Christian understanding of families, tribes, and nations. Ethno-nationalism holds that nations are defined and rooted in common heredity, and that the foundations of a nation are based on common ancestry, language, culture, religion, and social customs.

What are the primary factors that bind a nation together? Is it common ancestry or common ideas? In a sense, ethno-nationalism is redundant. It is evident that the English word nation has been traditionally defined by birth, not merely geographic or political boundaries. The word nation in the English language is related to natal, which means birth, as in a neo-natal ward. On Christmas we celebrate Christ’s nativity. You are a native of the land of your birth. But if this is true, why even speak of ethno-nationalism since it is redundant? Why not simply defend the concept of nationalism? The reason is that in recent history we have seen the ascendancy of the concept of the proposition nation. A proposition nation is supposed to be a group of people who are united by a common ideology rather than by common heredity, but as we shall see, a proposition nation is a contradiction in terms.

The question that we as orthodox Christians must ask is: How does the Bible use the term nation? What kind of nation does the Bible promote? Does the Bible endorse a more traditional definition of a nation? Or does the Bible promote the idea of a propositional nation, the proposition being Christian faith? It is my goal to demonstrate that the Bible in fact promotes the traditional concept a nation as an aggregation of people who share a common lineage.

The Meaning and Usage of the Word Nation in the Bible

The Bible is predominantly written in the Hebrew and Greek languages. The Biblical word used in the Greek New Testament and Septuagint translation of the Old Testament is the word ethnos. This word is related to our English word ethnicity and denotes those of a common lineage. This definition is also consistent with how the word nation is used in the Bible. Nations are first mentioned in the Table of Nations listed in Genesis chapter 10. The Table of Nations classifies the people descended from Noah after the Biblical Flood. These nations are all listed by heredity, like branches off a tree that has Noah for its trunk. Nations are enumerated as an extension of families (Gen. 10:5, 20, 31-32), and the usage of the word nation is consistent throughout the Bible. After a number of generations had passed after the Flood, a man named Nimrod tried to build an empire. His kingdom was called Babel, and he united several different groups of people by his charismatic leadership. The people under Nimrod set out to build a city and a tower as a monument to their commitment to political unity. God takes notice of this arrangement and proclaims that this will cause evil to go unrestrained (Gen. 11:6). God resolves to confuse the language of the Babel builders in order that men might henceforth be kept from uniting into one body politic. This is a strong passage that demonstrates that national boundaries and divisions are commensurate with the natural order that God has ordained.

Some may argue that the division of nations was only a transient solution to a problem posed several centuries ago and that in Christ these divisions are healed. These people would typically view national boundaries or division as a problem that will ultimately be solved. Ethno-nationalists strongly disagree with this view of the teleology or purpose of race and racial distinctions. Ethno-nationalists affirm that God intended to create separate races, nations, tribes, and families from the beginning, and that ultimately all people would be united under Christ. Since racial distinctions exist in heaven, it is clear that God intended for racial distinctions to exist for his own glory. Nothing in the Bible indicates that racial distinctions or racial identity is a transient solution to a temporary problem. Instead these distinctions are an integral element of our identity that will endure forever (Rev. 5:9, 7:9, 21:24, 22:2). Since we’ve established that separate nationalities exist in heaven and that there are multiple “nations of them which are saved,” it is clear that race does indeed have intrinsic significance. We could no more argue that our resurrected bodies will lack racial identity than we could argue that they lack gender identity.

Racial Pride, Loyalty, and Responsibility

It is common among white Christians today to believe that any sort of pride of race is inherently wrong or evil. Many Christians express the belief that we should only boast in our identity in Christ. There is a sense in which this is true. The Apostle Paul considered everything that he could claim to be “but dung” in comparison to the “excellency of the knowledge of Christ Jesus my Lord” (Phil. 3:4-8) including his own ancestry! It’s extremely important to note that Paul is making a comparison by hyperbole. Paul is saying that in comparison with Christ’s righteousness, all that we have and all that we are is worthless! It is also important to point out that Paul is comparing his own righteousness, to the righteousness of Christ. It is in this sense that nothing about us matters for salvation. We are saved solely by the merits of Christ. Even Christ demands that our loyalty to himself exceed our loyalty to our immediate families and spouses (Matt. 19:29, cf. Mar. 10:30). It would be a severe mistake however to conclude that attributes such as ancestry or even marriage are meaningless!

Indeed, the very same Apostle Paul who spoke those words to the Philippians also said that he was “willing to be accursed from Christ” for his “brethren, his kinsman according to the flesh” (Rom. 9:3). The New International Version renders “kinsman according to the flesh” as “race.” This is a clear and unashamed expression of racial pride and loyalty. Paul unambiguously expresses solidarity with his people even though they themselves were unbelievers! Paul’s commitment for his missionary work to non-Israelite people did not in any way compete with his natural affection for his own people. If it was alright for Paul to express such commitment to the welfare of his own kindred, why is it considered wrong for white people to express the same commitment? White people are usually singled out for any expression of solidarity with each other, even when there is clearly no animosity expressed towards people of different races. This sentiment of love and affection for one’s own people should not only be manifested in warm feelings of kind regard, but also should be manifested by outward actions and responsibilities.

Today many people do not believe in family responsibilities or obligations. This should not be so! The Apostle Paul tells his disciple Timothy that “if any provide not for his own, and especially for those of his own house, he hath denied the faith, and is worse than an infidel!” (1 Tim. 5:8). Clearly, our “own” probably cannot be interpreted to mean what we would call race today. Our own in this verse refers to extended family which centers in on the household or immediate family. What Paul is teaching here is that people have familial obligations that radiate outward in concentric loyalties. Our responsibilities to humanity at large are extraordinarily small in comparison to our responsibility to our immediate family. This again demonstrates that family, clan, tribe, nation, and race have meaning in the Biblical paradigm of society.

The Purpose of National Distinctions

The purpose that God has for different nations or races will be fleshed out in greater detail in other articles. This should merely serve as a brief overview of the question of what purpose the nations serve. The first observation that we must make is that national distinction based upon heredity already existed at the time of Babel. We are given a relative time frame reference in the Table of Nations when we read that the division of Babel occurring during the lifetime of Peleg (Gen. 10:25). Peleg is the fourth generation from Shem, and the fifth generation from Noah. Therefore, it seems that national identity was rooted in the sons of Noah and their offspring, and that the division at Babel was not a new or innovative arrangement, but was rather a reaffirmation of a preexisting social structure which had existed at least since the time of the Flood. God confused language as an additional tool for maintaining national distinction. This did not create new nations which had theretofore not existed! There had already been several generations of the nations listed in Genesis 10 by the time that Tower of Babel is formed and God was protecting the unique identity of the nations that already existed. It is certainly true that Babel was a punishment for sin, but it was also an act of mercy from God in order to restrain the evil that typically arises in cosmopolitan societies who have lost sight of their tribal identity. Raceless or tribeless societies become decadent due to anonymity and loss of patriarchal authority, which is inevitable in these regimes. When people forget their ancestors they will not regard their children and future descendants!

Deuteronomy 32:8 tells us that nations were divided by a special act of God’s providence. We read that the Most High divided the nations their inheritance and separated the sons of Adam, and that God set the boundaries of the nations. God’s dividing the inheritance to the various nations is a positive and intentional work of God’s providence. This means that God did not merely allow the nations to be divided but that He caused this to happen for man’s own good.

Another pivotal passage that addresses the purposes of national distinctions and affirms their propriety is Acts 17:26-27. In this passage we read that God made from one blood (presumably referring again to Adam) “all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth, and hath determined the times before appointed, and the bounds of their habitation; That they should seek the Lord, if haply they might feel after him, and find him, though he be not far from every one of us.” It is worth pointing out that traditional Christians firmly believe that all humanity is descended from Adam and Eve, seeing as Eve is referred to as the “mother of all living” (Gen. 3:20). Commonly, detractors of ethno-nationalism erect a straw man that suggests that ethno-nationalists do not affirm the unity of everyone under Adam as a covenant head. Indeed, it is this covenant unity by which original sin is transferred to all mankind (Rom. 5:12). But this common descent from Adam does not change the fact that God intentionally divided the nations of men and appointed them their respective bounds and habitations. Notice also that verse 27 provides us with a reason why God did this. God did this so that man would grope for God and find him! It is important to note that no one can come to God through their own natural ability (1 Cor. 2:14), but it is clear that God uses distinct nations as a means of bringing about salvation by his own sovereignty similar to the way that God uses believing spouses to sanctify and redeem their unbelieving husbands or wives (1 Cor. 7:14).

Some people argue that this may have been a passing purpose of national distinctions, but that these distinctions are blurred or done away with by the descent of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost recorded in Acts chapter 2. The problem with this interpretation is that it does not square with the narrative. If God intended for the people at Pentecost to amalgamate into one body politic then he would have caused them to start speaking one language again, hereby facilitating their unity. Instead we read that God caused those present to hear the Apostle Peter preach to them in their own language! It is important also to point out that those assembled at Pentecost were identified as pious Israelites who had gathered at Jerusalem from the regions where they had been residing. Pentecost would hardly resemble a United Nations gathering today. The people involved were quite homogeneous ethnically. Moreover Pentecost was the baptism of Babel. Dr. Francis Nigel Lee states quite succinctly the relationship between Babel and Pentecost:

Pentecost sanctified the legitimacy of separate nationality rather than saying this is something we should outgrow. In fact, even in the new earth to come, after the Second Coming of Christ, we are told that the nations of them which are saved shall walk in the light of the heavenly Jerusalem, and the kings of the earth shall bring the glory and the honor—the cultural treasures—of the nations into it… But nowhere in Scripture are any indications to be found that such peoples should ever be amalgamated into one huge nation.

What then is the destiny of separate nationality as Dr. Lee calls it? Are separate nations bound to “bleed into one” as the Gospel spreads? Or will separate nationhood persist? Ethno-nationalists strongly believe that separate nationhood will persist even into the next life in the new heavens and the new earth. We read about this chiefly in Revelation, written by the Apostle John, when he writes that “the nations of them which are saved shall walk in the light of it (heavenly Jerusalem): and the kings of the earth do bring their glory and honour into it” (Rev. 21:24). The Apostle John also envisions Christians of every kindred, people, and nation in heaven (Rev. 5:9, 7:9), and also witnesses the Tree of Life in the heavenly Jerusalem which is for the healing of the nations (Rev. 22:2). Within the church, then, we can boldly assert that there are separate and distinct nations. When you become a Christian, you retain your ethnic and racial identity. These are not done away with in Christ, but rather sanctified and legitimized in the same way that both genders are sanctified in their separate identities within the family and Church. What role do nations play in a Christian civil society? This question is foundational to a traditional Christian understanding of social order.

The Role of Nationhood

As J.C. Ryle has written, “Community of blood is a most powerful tie.” In Deut. 23, Israel is given laws regarding who can assimilate into the congregation of the Lord. The congregation of the Lord probably denotes Israel’s national church. It is important to notice that assimilation took into account both heredity and history when determining assimilation. The Moabites and Ammonites are more thoroughly excluded due to a bad past history with the children of Israel, and Egypt is more readily assimilated due to Israel being a stranger in their land. Edom and Israel were nations that had a troubled history to say the least. But the Edomites are easily assimilated into the Israelite congregation due to their consanguinity, since both are descended from the patriarch Isaac. This is why Edom is referred to as Israel’s brother (Deut. 23:7, Num. 20:14). The significance of consanguinity taught in this passage was not lost on noted commentator Matthew Henry, who writes concerning this that, “The unkindness of near relations, though by many worst taken, yet should with us, for that reason, because of the relation, be first forgiven.”

Ethnic identities are the outgrowth of families. The Bible does not endorse the notion of a propositional nation that is simply identified by ideas rather than lineage. Israel serves as an example of nationhood that the rest of the nations are supposed to emulate (Deut. 4:5-7). It stands to reason that if Israel was reckoned hereditarily by lineage, then all nations should be identified the same way. The easiest way to conceive of a nation is to think of a nation in the proper sense as an extended family. Ancient Israel was organized into twelve tribes descended from their patriarch Jacob, and these tribes are listed according to the families that make them up. The first eight chapters of Chronicles are dedicated to listing the families of the tribes because “all Israel were reckoned by genealogies” (See Numbers 1-4 and 1 Chronicles 1-8, 9:1).

Non-Israelites were called strangers or sojourners and were to be treated with courtesy and fairness (Ex. 12:48-49, 22:21, 23:9, Lev. 19:10, 19:33-34, Lev. 23:22, 24:22, Num. 9:14, 15:15-16, 15:29-30). The best way to think of these strangers or sojourners is as invited house guests. Guests in your home should be treated with the utmost courtesy, but at the same time they do not take ownership or possession of what belongs to you. Incidentally, God promises to punish wayward Israel with uncontrolled influx of foreigners who will sap their strength and consume their wealth (Deut. 28:32-36). This is eerily similar to America’s current circumstances. Physical blood relationships are significant for civil government through the principle of kin rule as well as for property ownership since only Israelites were allowed to permanently own land that was partitioned based upon tribal identity.

The Principle of Kin Rule

The Bible places familial authority in the hands of husbands and fathers. This is considered “sexist” or “chauvinistic” by today’s standard, but God does not answer to man’s opinions! In the Bible, civil authority is a natural outgrowth of familial authority. The foundational text for this position is Deut. 17:15, which states that Israel should set one from among their brethren to be king over them, and that they were not to put a stranger over them who was not their brother. It’s important to keep in mind that brothers does not always refer to Christians in the Bible. Num. 20:14, Deut. 1:16, 23:7, 2 Kings 10:13-14, Neh. 5:7, Jer. 34:9, and Rom. 9:3 are examples of it being used in the ethnic sense in terms of Israel’s identity. Gill points out that the King is Israel’s brother, both by nation and religion, not exclusively by religion. Keil & Delitzsch point out that the King is not a foreigner or non-Israelite. Knox suggests that based upon Deut. 17:15, all women and strangers are excluded. Again, we cannot simply interpret references to strangers or foreigners as though they were inherently unbelievers. Is. 56:3 is a good example of strangers/foreigners joining God’s covenant. Samuel Rutherford also uses Deut. 17:15 as the foundational text of his classic magnum opus on civil government in which he comments, “The king is a relative.” I would also point out that strangers could be circumcised (Ex. 12:48), but were still reckoned apart from the children of Israel (Num. 11:4), and were not made civil magistrates (Deut. 1:13-16, 17:15). Membership within the nation of Israel was based upon heredity (Deut. 15:12; 23:7, 19-20; Num. 20:14; Lev. 18:26; 22:18). Lev. 18:26 is particularly informative because those who keep God’s law and statutes are said to be of the Israelite nation (ethnos) and the strangers (non-Israelites) that dwell among them. This is a solid example of how the nation of Israel was considered to be hereditary, not solely covenantal or spiritual.

There are other parallel passages that confirm the familial nature of civil authority. Kings and queens are referred to as fathers and mothers (Is. 49:23). Other parallel passages that should be mentioned are 2 Sam. 5:1 and 1 Chr. 11:1 in which the tribes of Israel affirm David’s legitimate claim to rule by stating that they were of David’s “bone and flesh.” It is clear from the context that “bone and flesh” refers to some finite hereditary relationship that cannot be applied to everyone. That civil rulers should have a close kindred relationship to those they rule seems to be the application of what Moses is communicating in Deut. 1:13-16 and 17:15. This establishes the basic principle upon which all nations are governed. This bone and flesh relationship is the same way that the Bible communicates what is normative for marriage (Gen. 2:23). God created the woman to be a “helpmate” to her husband, and this is best accomplished by the bone and flesh relationship of Adam to Eve. Intermarriage between distant nations breaks this norm mentioned in Gen. 2:23-24 for marriage in a similar way that polygamy or marriage across large age differences goes against the standard rule for marriage based upon the example given by the marriage of Adam to Eve. Civil consideration also prevented marriage with people who were Israel’s enemies. The law in Deut. 23:1-8 was applied by Ezra and Nehemiah to prevent marriage to those who would seek Israel’s harm. The practical reasons for this rule in Deut. 17:15 is obvious. If a stranger governs a nation then he will naturally expropriate the wealth and property of the native people for the benefit of those who are of his own bone and flesh. This applies both to Christians as well as non-Christians since multiple nations will always exist within the Church and will continue to exist in Heaven (Rev. 21:24). There can be exceptions to this rule. God temporarily used Joseph as a wise regent to Pharaoh in Egypt (Gen. 39:4-6), and King Cyrus’ righteous decree allowed the Israelites to return to their homeland under his protection (2 Chr. 36:22-23). These are exceptions to the rule and are a clear case of God bringing the best out of a less than ideal situation.

Tribal Property Ownership

The Bible promotes the private ownership of property. This is inherent in the commandment against stealing (Ex. 20:15, cf. Deut. 5:19). God is the true and proper owner of everything (Ps. 24:1), but He has delegated stewardship over creation so that humanity might take dominion over what God has created (Gen. 1:28-30). Part of this dominion is exercised in ownership of property. God divides the inhabitable land between the different nations (Deut. 32:8, Acts 17:26) and he further subdivides this land between the various tribes, clans, and families. God expects boundaries to be acknowledged and respected (Prov. 22:28, Deut. 27:17). This does not mean that political boundaries will never change. A good example of this was the political schism that divided the nation of Israel into the separate kingdoms of Israel and Judah following King Solomon’s death. The fact that political boundaries might change over time does not nullify the principle and relevance of boundaries in general to God.

God’s law also provided Israel with a provision that would insure that property stayed within families and clans. The firstborn son would become the primary inheritor of his father’s estate and property (Num. 3), and would thus become the head of his father’s house after his father’s death and the caretaker of his kinsmen. This is called primogeniture and was practiced as a matter of law in European society until very recently. In the absence of a male heir, the eldest daughter’s husband would be the primary inheritor of the estate. What if the daughter’s husband was from another tribe or clan? Wouldn’t this easily transfer property from one family or tribe to another tribe? Yes it would, so God specified that female heirs were to marry within their father’s tribe and clan, so as to prohibit this from happening (Num. 27:1-11, cf. Num. 36). Recall that Israel is given to us as an example of how Godly nations are to operate (Deut. 4:5-7). Clearly, then, God cares about physical inheritance, and His law has built-in protections from allowing it to be squandered or permanently lost due to passing financial offers or circumstances. The Bible promotes economic nationalism by allowing Israel to charge royalties to foreigners for the privilege of conducting business with the Israelites, as well as by providing for the Jubilee laws, which allowed the Israelites to redeem their property that they would have to lease or sell for a period of time (Lev. 25). The problem of the mentality of the “global economy” is that this concept is the tool of international bankers and business men who desire to turn a profit at the expense of the well-being of their countrymen and even immediate family!

Contrast this problem with one of the best examples of fidelity to familial inheritance in the person of Naboth. King Ahab offered a large sum of money to Naboth in exchange for the vineyard that Ahab coveted. Naboth refused, telling Ahab, “The LORD forbid it me, that I should give the inheritance of my fathers unto thee” (1 Kings 21:3). Naboth clearly expresses that his loyalty to his ancestors is stronger than his impulse to make a quick buck. The ironic thing about laissez-faire capitalism is that the desire to get rich quick and frequently exchange property often leads to poverty and over-consolidation of wealth in the hands of a few businessmen and executives. Societies that neglect Biblical wisdom will ultimately pay the price in their inheritance!

Empires and Propositional Nationhood

Against the principle of kin rule and tribal ownership is the existence of empires. An empire is a kingdom that extends over several different tribes, nations, and peoples. Propositional nationhood has its origin in empires. The first recorded attempt at empire was Nimrod forming the city of Babel that was mentioned previously. The prophet Daniel also speaks about a succession of empires that would rule the Mediterranean world in Daniel chapters 2 and 7. Empires are usually relatively short-lived and are maintained by military might and aggression (Daniel 2:37-40, 7:19). As such empires are a cheap imitation of Christ’s spiritual kingdom which will grow to encompass all physical nations and people (Dan. 2:44, 7:13-14, Rev. 5:9, 7:9) which is established peacefully by the internal ministry of the Holy Spirit, rather than by military might (Jn. 18:36).

America was not traditionally viewed as a “propositional nation” until recently in history. John Jay, first Chief Justice of the United States, and co-author of the Federalist Papers, writes concerning America’s founding:

With equal pleasure I have as often taken notice that Providence has been pleased to give this one connected country to one united people—a people descended from the same ancestors, speaking the same language, professing the same religion, attached to the same principles of government, very similar in their manners and customs, and who, by their joint counsels, arms, and efforts, fighting side by side throughout a long and bloody war, have nobly established general liberty and independence.

In case you missed it, John Jay means by “descended from the same ancestors” that Americans were identified as Europeans, in the same way that the “same religion” that Americans professed was Christianity.

The underlying problem with propositional nations is that they experience internal conflict due to differences in interpretation of the country’s propositions. Take America for example. America is supposed to be a propositional country that unites around the concepts of “freedom” or “democracy” or my personal favorite, “tolerance.” Who interprets these concepts in the same way? No one! This is why every election cycle is a heated debate over our meaningless and undefined “values.” America has degenerated into a proposition nation in the recent decades, but it is by no means the first proposition nation. The Greek historian Aelius Aristides wrote extensively about Roman universal citizenship of the people it conquered as a means of preserving their rule:

Most noteworthy and most praiseworthy of all is the grandeur of your conception of citizenship. There is nothing on earth like it. You have divided all of the people of the empire—and when I say that, I mean the whole world—into two classes; and all the more cultured, virtuous, and able ones everywhere you have made into citizens and nationals of Rome … Neither the sea nor any distance on land shuts a man out from citizenship. Asia and Europe are in this respect not separate. Everything lies open to everybody; and no one fit for office or responsibility is considered an alien. Rome has never said “No more room!”

No one is a foreigner who deserves to hold an office or is worthy of trust. Rather, there is here a common “world democracy” under the rule of one man, the best ruler and director … You have divided humanity into Romans and non-Romans, … and because you have divided people in this manner, in every city throughout the empire there are many who share citizenship with you, no less than the share citizenship with their fellow natives. And some of these Roman citizens have not even seen this city [Rome]!

Sound familiar? This sounds an awful lot like America’s current immigration and naturalization policy! In AD 212, Emperor Caracalla finally declared all freemen of the empire from Britain to Arabia as Roman citizens. When Americans promote this concept of propositional nationhood in the quest to “make the world safe for democracy,” we are unwittingly replicating the worst aspects of pagan Rome who tried to set up a “world democracy” under the rule of one man. America’s current religious policy is the same is the imperialistic Romans. All religions are tolerated so long as they conform to the obedience of the state, whereas Christ accepts no competitors in matters of religion (Matt. 12:30). For Rome, this meant worshiping Caesar as God in addition to whatever other gods a person might be inclined to worship, and in modern America we look to the state no less than the ancient Romans did for the source of all our material needs and comforts.

Was America founded as a Roman style propositional empire? Or was America founded as a biblical nation rooted in history, tradition, kinship, and the Christian faith? America was founded by the settlers in Virginia and the Pilgrims in Massachusetts as a Biblical nation. The Virginia Company’s charter seal bore the image of the English King James I. The Pilgrims addressed themselves as “loyal subjects of our dread Sovereign Lord King James” meaning that the colonists saw themselves as English subjects rather than as Christians who had no earthly sovereign. President George Washington insured that immigration and naturalization were restricted to “free white persons of good moral character.” If we had continued to heed the wise precedent of many past generations of Americans then non-Christian religions would be essentially non-existent here. Borders have been blurred and in some cases rendered meaningless by allowing imperialism and cultural Marxism to dictate policy rather than God’s law. We will not avoid the punishment that God promises to those who disregard His law and precepts (Deut. 28:43-44).

An Appeal to Ethno-Nationalism

It is obvious that there is no alternative to embracing the ethno-nationalism that the Bible prescribes as normative. Europe was made great through the adherence to God’s law in all things, including ethno-nationalism. We have fallen far from our previous civilization which was evident only a number of decades ago. During the 1960s, the culturally-Marxist “civil rights movement” carried us toward the unbiblical idea of “equal rights” and away from God’s law.

We as Christians have a moral duty to promote Godly order in our lives, as well as for our families and our societies. We can clearly see from the Bible that nations should naturally be tied to blood and soil. We must reject ideologies which reject this Christian notion of ethno-nationalism. It is no coincidence that we have rejected the Christian basis for national identity at the same time as we are rejecting the Christian doctrine of marriage, gender roles, and morality. The rejection of ethno-nationalism is nothing more than a symptom of the rejection of God’s law in its entirety, sadly even by professed Christians in many cases.

The foundation of a Biblical nation as defined in the Table of Nations is derived from common ancestry, common religion, common history, and common customs, and mutually possessed ideas and values will be built upon this foundation. In America we have made the same mistake as the Romans before us, and we will not escape their eventual fate. We European Christians who are heirs of Western Civilization are at a crossroads. We can either choose to continue to wantonly follow the paths trod by our Roman imperial pagan forebears in which case we will meet the same impending doom that very nearly ruined the West, or we can revive the spirit of Christian nationalism which saved the West and preserved its civilization for generations of European people. The solution is to return to the old paths that our ancestors once trod (Jer. 6:16), and to once again embrace the God of our fathers. God alone can rebuild our cities and put flesh upon the dry bones of our ancestors (Eze. 37). It is incumbent upon us to embrace the future with optimism that God will preserve a faithful remnant to once again rebuild the ruins which we now dwell among (Is. 1:9).

Subscribe now

The red squirrel is a species of tree squirrel native to Eurasia, where it has been present for at least 10,000 years. The word “squirrel” comes from the ancient Greek skiouros (σκίουρος), meaning “shadow-tail.”

Despite the name, there are several coat colour morphs among red squirrels, ranging from black to red. Red coats are most common in Great Britain; in other parts of Europe and Asia, different coat colours coexist within populations, much like hair colour in some human populations. The underside of the squirrel is always white-cream in colour. The red squirrel sheds its coat twice a year, switching from a thinner summer coat to a thicker, darker winter coat with noticeably larger ear tufts between August and November.

They feed primarily on nuts, seeds, and berries. They require 80 to 100 calories per day; so each day they’d need to eat the equivalent of ten hazelnuts, or twelve almonds. On rare occasions, they will eat bird eggs. A Swedish study of 600 squirrel stomachs showed that only in 4 were remains of a bird egg found.

The life expectancy of red squirrels that survive their first Winter is around three years, though 75-80% of juveniles die during their first winter.

The main competitor of the red squirrel is its grey counterpart. The grey squirrels are an invasive species, originating from North America. They were originally brought to Britain by the upper class during the Victorian era, as they were seen as an “exotic” addition to private grounds, until they were eventually released from their estates into the wild, under the misguided notion that they would cause no harm.

The larger, more aggressive non-native squirrels carry the squirrel parapoxvirus, which does not affect their own health, yet is able to kill the red squirrels. The eastern grey squirrel can better digest acorns, whilst the red squirrel cannot access the proteins and fats in acorns as easily, leaving less food for the natives. When put under these pressures, the red squirrel will not breed as often, but grey squirrels are able to reproduce at more than twice the rate of the natives. Thus, when the grey squirrel arrives in a red squirrel area, the red squirrel population usually disappears within 15 years.

Due to the combination of these factors, there was a collapse of the native population and the dominance of the imported species. The population has today fallen to 160,000 red squirrels or fewer; 120,000 of these are in Scotland.

The only sustainable way to conserve the Red Squirrel in the UK and Ireland is to remove the grey squirrel from the habitats suitable for red squirrels. Ultimately, the ideal way to secure the red squirrel’s future is the complete eradication of the grey from the islands, however this is currently an unachievable target given the available resources and would be practically very difficult, yet progress has been made.

Grey squirrels began to be eradicated in the North Wales island of Anglesey in 1998, allowing for the recovery of the red population, and population control through trapping, shooting, or poisoning is in effect in parts of Ireland and northern England. A national project set up to reverse the decline of the native creatures has announced that grey squirrels could be completely eradicated from Aberdeen in the near future. Saving Scotland’s Red Squirrels (SSRS), which is led by the Scottish Wildlife Trust, has trapped over 10,000 greys since 2009, in 2025 their were only 12 detections in the city, including seven at feeders and five confirmed sightings.

But of course, this article isn’t really about squirrels.

This is about the replacement, demographic collapse, and genocide of a native population to the benefit of a foreign one. A foreign population that is violent, aggressive, disease-carrying, and that reproduces at a much higher rate than the natives. A foreign population brought here by a small group of wealthy hook-nosed elites under the guise that the natives weren’t sufficient.

To secure the existence of the natives, radical measures must be undertaken. Increasing the fertility rate has been done before, and successfully. But it is simply not enough. Even if our population collapsed, it would still likely be higher than it was when our country was built.

What is of more concern is the birthrate of the invaders, which can be reduced through limiting the number of offspring allowed, voluntary sterilisation, disincentivising reproduction, and, the most effective measure, deportation.

The red squirrel is not just a symbol for the need for the demographic survival of a native population, but also of the requirement for environmental conservation. There is very clearly an ecological crisis today. The climate is changing, our soils are degrading, biodiversity is cratering, and resources are being depleted unsustainably. If you wanted to destroy the environment as fast as possible, the best way to do that would be to curb the population of natives. The fastest way to do that is to import a metric ton of foreigners, who are proportionally more materialistic.

Petty nationalists tend to be afraid of environmentalism as they see it as an invention of the left. But the leftist idea of environmentalism is entirely performative, as “environmental” ideas are fundamentally opposed to their worldview; oikophilia, ethnocentrism, patriarchy, communalism, Blut und Boden, organicism and anti-humanism. To truly embrace the nationalist spirit, one must embrace the natural spirit of one’s homeland through the preservation of the forest, so that the pulses of national life continue to beat warmly and happily, and so that England remains English.

When a native population is treated as interchangeable, its survival becomes negotiable. When it is recognised as integral to the land itself, conservation becomes possible. The future of Britain’s people, like the future of its forests, depends on whether continuity is defended—or allowed to disappear quietly.

Ultimately, what’s happened to the red squirrel gives us a warning and a solution. When a native population is treated interchangeably, we witness what happens to them in their own homeland if certain measures aren’t undertaken to secure their existence. And what will happen is the complete destruction of its people, culture, and biological tie to Europe.

Subscribe now

STDs​

In the U.S., MSM (men who have sex with men) are 2% of the population however they make up 71% of all new HIV cases (2020). 87% of HIV cases among men were of gay men (2019).
https://www.hiv.gov/hiv-basics/overview/data-and-trends/statistics
Archive Link: https://archive.ph/gLK9x

Gays are up to 109 times as likely to have an STD compared to heterosexuals
The rate of HIV and Syphilis infection is significantly higher among homosexual men
Gay men are 67 times more likely to have HIV (U.S., 2012).
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3462414/
Archive Links: https://archive.ph/hPY6F
https://web.archive.org/web/2023080...v/pmc/articles/PMC3462414/pdf/TOAIDJ-6-98.pdf

42.6% of homosexual men have HPV in lifetime compared to just 13.2% of heterosexual men.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30475987/
Archive Links: https://archive.ph/M9ycE
https://web.archive.org/web/20230803211405/https://sci-hub.se/10.1093/cid/ciy1002

Homosexuals are 2% of the population but 70% of HIV cases overall and 86% of cases among men (U.S., 2019).
https://www.cdc.gov/hiv/statistics/overview/in-us/incidence.html
Archive Link: https://archive.ph/O6l0B

Minimally, at least 94% of cases of monkeypox are among homosexual men.
https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/71/wr/mm7132e3.htm?s_cid=mm7132e3_w
Archive Link: https://archive.ph/2Cehn

MSM are 59% of all HIV cases while being only 4% of the population according to CDC’s estimate, and are over 44 times more likely to have HIV (2010).
CDC also states that of MSM in 20 major U.S. cities in 2011, nearly 1 in 5 MSM are infected with HIV at that moment.
Between 2008-2010 HIV cases among MSM increased 12%, while for heterosexual women, HIV cases decreased 18% and for heterosexual men there was no change.
https://www.cdc.gov/stdconference/2010/CDC-MSM-508.pdf
Archive Link: https://web.archive.org/web/20230803195513/https://www.cdc.gov/stdconference/2010/CDC-MSM-508.pdf
https://www.cdc.gov/nchhstp/newsroom/docs/factsheets/archive/new-hiv-infections-508.pdf
Archive Link: https://web.archive.org/web/2023080...factsheets/archive/new-hiv-infections-508.pdf

In the U.S., (2016) homosexuals made up an estimated 73% of new HIV cases even though they were only 2% of the population.
https://www.cdc.gov/nchhstp/newsroom/docs/factsheets/cdc-msm-508.pdf
Archive Link: https://web.archive.org/web/2023080...hstp/newsroom/docs/factsheets/cdc-msm-508.pdf

The risk of HIV through unprotected male homosexual intercourse is seen to be extremely high, as much 18 times greater than unprotected vaginal intercourse.
In fact when protection is used this gap only rises since condoms have been shown to have 80% efficiency in heterosexuals as opposed to 70% in male homosexuals.
https://academic.oup.com/ije/article/39/4/1048/791327?login=false
Archive Link: https://archive.ph/sR0Eo
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/25469526/
Archive Link: https://archive.ph/tUFE5

Worldwide, the risk of HIV acquisition among gay men and other men who have sex with men was 22 times higher in 2018 than it was among all adult men.
https://www.unaids.org/en/resources...tories/2019/november/20191105_key-populations
Archive Link: https://archive.ph/bihGr

Homosexuals were 70% of all HIV cases in 2018 (U.S. & Dependant Areas).
https://www.cdc.gov/hiv/pdf/library...v-surveillance-report-2018-updated-vol-31.pdf
Archive Link: https://web.archive.org/web/2023080...v-surveillance-report-2018-updated-vol-31.pdf

Homosexuals engaging in high risk sexual activity (i.e. unprotected sex, many partners) are 2 times more likely to have inflammatory bowel disease than heterosexuals who engage in the same high risk sexual behaviour.
https://gut.bmj.com/content/early/2022/08/31/gutjnl-2022-328218
Archive Link: https://archive.ph/Zve4f

WSW (Women who have sex with women) are more likely to acquire bacterial, viral, and protozoal STIs.
https://academic.oup.com/cid/article/53/suppl_3/S84/312345
Archive Links: https://archive.ph/oqmWv
https://tinyurl.com/bdekwc5w

94%-95% of new HIV cases among young men are linked to gay sex.
https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/c...es-among-boys-and-young-men-linked-to-gay-se/
Archive Link: https://archive.ph/DS09M

According to the CDC, in 2014, 83% of male Syphilis cases affected men who have sex with men.
https://www.cdc.gov/nchhstp/newsroom/2015/std-surveillance-report.html
Archive Link: https://archive.ph/ox9K6
https://web.archive.org/web/2023082...p/newsroom/docs/factsheets/STD-Trends-508.pdf

1 in 8 gay men in London has HIV.
http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2014/11/18/13-of-gay-and-bisexual-men-in-london-living-with-hiv/
Archive Link: https://archive.ph/IsBiq

1 in 5 gay and bisexual men have HIV in 21 major US cities and half of them do not know it.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-...n-in-u-s-cities-has-hiv-idUSTRE68M3H220100923
Archive Link: https://archive.ph/IYkdM

As many as 50% of homosexuals have HIV in their lifetime.
https://www.cdc.gov/nchhstp/newsroom/docs/factsheets/cdc-msm-508.pdf
Archive Link: https://web.archive.org/web/2023080...hstp/newsroom/docs/factsheets/cdc-msm-508.pdf

In 2019, gay and bisexual men accounted for 69% of all HIV cases in the US
https://www.cdc.gov/hiv/group/msm/msm-content/diagnoses.html
Archive Link: https://archive.ph/XmsqK

About 94.4% of HIV cases between the ages 13-19 and 94.7% between the ages 20-24 were linked to gay sex compared to 3.3-3.5% for heterosexual sex.
https://www.cdc.gov/hiv/pdf/statistics_surveillance_Adolescents.pdf
Archive Link: https://web.archive.org/web/2023080...v/pdf/statistics_surveillance_Adolescents.pdf

From 2005–14, HIV diagnoses decreased in the United States by 19% overall, but increased 6% among all gay and bisexual men.
https://archive.is/kwz7N

Homosexuals are 42 times more likely to have gonorrhoea.
https://www.cdc.gov/nchhstp/newsroom/docs/factsheets/std-trends-508.pdf
Archive Link: https://web.archive.org/web/2023080...p/newsroom/docs/factsheets/std-trends-508.pdf

In 2014, LGBT accounted for 83% of primary and secondary syphilis cases.
https://www.cdc.gov/msmhealth/STD.htm
Archive Link: https://archive.ph/00bcD

Infection rates for gonorrhoea and chlamydia are increasing among active homosexual men.
http://journals.lww.com/stdjournal/...l_Increases_in_Chlamydia_and_Gonorrhea.6.aspx
Archive Link: https://archive.ph/DjWKb

Homosexuals account for 67% of AIDS patients (U.S., 2016).
https://archive.ph/scA5b

Active homosexual men are 17 times more likely than straight people to have anal cancer.
https://www.cdc.gov/msmhealth/STD.htm
Archive Link: https://archive.ph/00bcD

A study found 67.5% of homosexual men are infected with intestinal parasites compared to 16% of heterosexual men.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1704818/
Archive Links: https://archive.ph/U94O5
https://web.archive.org/web/2023080...rticles/PMC1704818/pdf/canmedaj01466-0054.pdf

10% of new Hepatitis A and 20% of all new Hepatitis B infections in the United States are among gay and bisexual men.
https://www.cdc.gov/msmhealth/viral-hepatitis.htm
Archive Link: https://archive.ph/jw47

47% of homosexuals have HPV compared to only 12% of heterosexuals.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/21148496/
Archive Link: https://archive.ph/6tnBE

Homosexual men are 35 times more likely to have anal cancer than heterosexual men.
https://academic.oup.com/jid/article/204/11/1711/850478
Archive Link: https://archive.ph/4n3Ag
https://tinyurl.com/j44udhu5

Gay and bisexual men living with HIV and those who reported receptive anal intercourse were at increased risk of incident anal HRHPV (high-risk anal human papillomavirus).
https://sti.bmj.com/content/98/2/101
Archive Link: https://archive.ph/Pt4mc
https://web.archive.org/web/20230821225133/https://sti.bmj.com/content/sextrans/98/2/101.full.pdf

39% of homosexual men have EBV virus compared to 6% of heterosexuals.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/10837190/
Archive Link: https://archive.ph/0dpxu
https://sci-hub.se/10.1086/315521
https://web.archive.org/web/20230821225706/https://sci-hub.se/10.1086/315521

Homosexual behavior creates new strains of multi-drug resistant STDs.
https://www.acpjournals.org/doi/10.7326/0003-4819-148-4-200802190-00204
Archive Link: https://archive.ph/g2vqv
https://sci-hub.se/10.7326/0003-4819-148-4-200802190-00204
https://web.archive.org/web/2023082...ub.se/10.7326/0003-4819-148-4-200802190-00204

Lesbians are significantly more likely to have chlamydia than heterosexual women.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/20724697/
Archive Link: https://archive.ph/uj63Y
https://archive.ph/Ai790

More recent data from NHANES conducted in 2001–2006 among women aged 18–59 years demonstrates an HSV-2 seroprevalence of 36.2% among women reporting same-sex partners in their lifetime, compared to 23.8% among women reporting no lifetime same-sex behaviour.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/20531032/
Archive Link: https://archive.ph/zP9bN
https://archive.ph/vmMHN

66.8% of homosexuals report to having previous infection with pediculosis; 38.4%, gonorrhoea; 24.1%, nonspecific urethritis; 18.1%, venereal warts; 13.5%, syphilis; 9.7%, hepatitis; and 9.4%, herpes (1977, n=4.2K).
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/6895004/
Archive Link: https://archive.ph/GYwZV
https://web.archive.org/web/2023082...c/articles/PMC1619871/pdf/amjph00669-0030.pdf

Homosexual men have a high prevalence of child sexual abuse (CSA) in the United States, and it is suggested that CSA history is a risk factor for HIV infection in men who have sex with men (MSM). 27.3% of homosexual men reported a CSA history. Meta-analysis indicated that MSM with CSA history were more likely to be HIV positive and to engage in recent unprotected anal intercourse. They were also more likely to report frequent casual male partners, substance use, and sex while under the influence of alcohol or other drugs.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/22676462/
Archive Link: https://archive.ph/P7bGI

Bisexually active adolescent males report especially high levels of AIDS risk behaviour.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/11818292/
Archive Link: https://archive.ph/t23bq

Other​

National Household Survey of Drug Abuse found that homosexual sex is as harmful as drug abuse, prostitution, or smoking.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/16173359/
Archive Link: https://archive.ph/MaElO

Straight men’s physiological stress response to seeing two men kissing is the same as seeing maggots.
https://www.psypost.org/straight-mens-physiological-stress-response-seeing-two-men-kissing-seeing-maggots/

A large representative sample of Canadian homosexuals found that on average homosexuals have up to 20 years lower life expectancy.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/9222793/
Archive Link:
https://archive.ph/u2hxd
https://tinyurl.com/yvxv9any

Sexual minorities are significantly less likely to be physically active or exercise.
Sexual minorities (lesbian, gay, bisexual, mostly heterosexual) have on average 1.21-2.62 h/week less MVPA (physical activity, exercise) and are 46-76 % less likely to participate in team sports than heterosexuals.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/24347406/
Archive Link: https://archive.ph/c0jg4
https://web.archive.org/web/2023082...v/pmc/articles/PMC3945417/pdf/nihms551295.pdf

After accounting for several covariates, compared with heterosexual females, sexual minority females are less likely to participate in team sports and more likely to be overweight, and more likely to be obese. Sexual minority males are less likely than heterosexual males to be physically active or to participate in team sports.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26180946/
Archive Link: https://archive.ph/MkjQ1
https://archive.ph/zCnB0

Systematic review of research found that lesbian and bisexual women have significantly greater body mass index (BMI) and a higher percentage with a BMI over 30 than heterosexual women.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/25747521/
Archive Link: https://archive.ph/H9FOf

Attractive and successful women are more likely to be heterosexual.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/22329089/
Archive Link: https://archive.ph/J90yo
https://sci-hub.se/10.1080/19485565.2011.615172
https://web.archive.org/web/20230821233734/https://sci-hub.se/10.1080/19485565.2011.615172

A homosexual lifestyle can result in a lower lifespan than smokers.
https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/expert-research-finds-homosexuality-more-dangerous-than-smoking/
Archive Link: https://archive.ph/LAnUG

Homosexual orientation was associated with 1.5-fold higher odds of reporting erectile dysfunction.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30926517/
Archive Link: https://archive.ph/M6Imb

70% of all homosexual men are infected with intestinal parasites, as opposed to only 10% of straight men.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/7437971/
Archive Link: https://archive.ph/DLw0y
https://web.archive.org/web/2023082...rticles/PMC1704818/pdf/canmedaj01466-0054.pdf

“Men who practise anal intercourse have higher rates of faecal incontinence.”
“Men who practised anal intercourse had higher odds of having faecal incontinence than women.”
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26753893/
Archive Link: https://archive.ph/jwPuf
https://web.archive.org/web/2023082...v/pmc/articles/PMC5231615/pdf/nihms840590.pdf

The immune system can be severely compromised if sperm were to be injected into a host’s anus because of the sperm’s reproductive mechanisms, as can be seen from this experiment on the rabbits:
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/6608789/
Archive Link: https://archive.ph/IrUN8
https://sci-hub.se/10.1126/science.6608789
https://web.archive.org/web/20230821234203/https://sci-hub.se/10.1126/science.6608789

Anal sex is extremely dangerous as the female body can comprehend certain signals emitted by “immuno-regulatory macromolecules” found in seminal fluid. These signals allow for the intimate union necessary for human reproduction in the vagina. However, when these signals are received in other areas, i.e, the anus, they are not properly interpreted and can lead to the fusion of sperm with somatic body cells. This fusion often leads to the formation of cancerous malignancies:
https://doi.org/10.1038/icb.1997.25
Archive Link: https://archive.ph/zDEnv
https://sci-hub.se/10.1038/icb.1997.25
https://web.archive.org/web/20230821234441/https://sci-hub.se/10.1038/icb.1997.25

Compared to straight adults, lesbian females had a significantly higher chance of being overweight while gay males had a significantly lower chance of being overweight. Similarly, lesbians were more likely to be obese whereas gay men were significantly less likely to be obese. Bisexual females had a significantly higher chance of being overweight and obese whereas bisexual males showed no significant difference.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6572698/
Archive Link:https://web.archive.org/web/2023082...c/articles/PMC6572698/pdf/ijerph-16-01828.pdf

Same-sex Parenting​

Compared with different sex couples, children raised by same-sex couples are 35 % less likely to make normal progress through school, this difference is statistically significant.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/23161454/

Children with same-sex parents experience significantly lower autonomy and higher anxiety and are over 3 times more likely to report same sex attraction (7.5% vs 23.2%).
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/314797679_The_Unexpected_Harm_of_Same-Sex_Marriage_A_Critical_Appraisal_Replication_and_Re-Analysis_of_Wainright_and_Patterson’s_Studies_of_Adolescents_with_Same-Sex_Parents

23% of those with lesbian parents reported having been touched sexually by a parent or adult, compared to 2% of those raised in a biological family.
31% of those raised by lesbian parents, and 25% of those raised by gay parents, reported being forced to have sex against their will at some point, compared to just 8% of those raised by their biological parents.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/23017845/

92% of children with homosexual parents have been abused, 72% are obese, 51% have depression and 30% are suicidal.
https://doi.org/10.1155/2016/2410392

Children of same-sex parents have significantly lower academic achievement.
https://www.cambridge.org/core/jour...-development/BA0DB5DC62B9E7D955454A5BB165F7F8

Children raised by gay couples are twice as likely to be in poverty as children of straight married couples.
https://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu/publications/lgb-patterns-of-poverty/

Emotional problems are over twice as prevalent for children with same-sex parents than for children with opposite sex parents.
https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Emotional-Problems-among-Children-with-Same-Sex-by-Sullins/0f374243ca084fb86a77822e277519e00a39f127

Children raised by same sex parents are only as 65% likely to graduate high school as children in different sex marriages.
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11150-013-9220-y

Children of same-sex parents have significantly worse gender development (boys less masculine, girls less feminine) than children of heterosexual parents.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/23420542/

A review of 9 studies gave evidence that children of same-sex parents were more apt to: adopt homosexual interests, report sexual confusion, be socially disturbed, abuse substances, have difficulty in loving relationships, be less religious, and have emotional difficulties. They were also less likely to get married, more frequently exposed to parental molestation, and more prone to more frequent sexual acts.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/19610497/

Women with gay or bisexual fathers are significantly less comfortable with closeness and intimacy, less able to trust and depend on others, and experience more anxiety in relationships than women with heterosexual fathers.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/19631107/

Children of same sex parents are more than 2 times more likely to suffer from ADHD.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/276329300_Child_Attention-Deficit_Hyperactivity_Disorder_ADHD_in_Same-Sex_Parent_Families_in_the_United_States_Prevalence_and_Comorbidities

Based off of teachers reports, children from lesbian families experience significantly more general problems, specifically 2 times more attention problems compared with children from heterosexual households.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/16180285/

12% of kids raised by lesbian parents and 24% of those raised by gay parents reported having recently contemplated suicide, compared to only 5% raised by an biological family or a single parent.
19% of those raised by same sex parents were currently or recently receiving psychotherapy, compared to 8% of those raised by their heterosexual parents.
40% of those raised by lesbian parents and 25% raised by gay parents reported cheating on their partner, compared to 13% of those raised by their biological parents.
28% of kids raised by lesbian parents and 20% of those raised by gay parents reported being currently unemployed, compared to 8% raised by a biological family and 13% raised by a single parent.
20% of those raised by lesbian parents and 25% of those raised by gay parents reported having contracted an STD, compared to 8% of those raised by their biological parents.
39% of those raised by lesbian parents and 29% of those raised by gay parents reported identifying as non-heterosexual compared to only 10% of those raised by an biological family.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/23017845/

Claims that gay parents are just as capable of raising children as straight parents are misrepresented.
http://www.jstor.org/stable/2657413

Children of lesbian parents have significantly worse gender development, and kids of gay parents have overall net worse gender development than kids of heterosexuals.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27416364/

Even though 2% of parents practise homosexuality, they account for 46% of the recently reported parent-child perpetrators.
https://web.archive.org/web/2017080...e-gay-parents-more-apt-to-commit-incest/#fn:1

Causing Homosexuality​

Meta analysis of 81 studies found that there are significant negative associations between living with gay or lesbian parents and several outcomes, also it found that kids with same sex parents are more likely to grow out to be homosexual themselves.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/336288130_Knowing_what_we_don’t_know_A_meta-analysis_of_children_raised_by_gay_or_lesbian_parents
Archive Link: https://archive.ph/rmwVW

Confirmation that children of homosexual parents are more likely to be homosexual based on examining previous sources of data.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/20642872/
Archive Link: https://archive.ph/KZTop

Male children raised by same-sex parents are 5 times more likely to be LGBT and female children raised by same-sex parents are 3 times more likely to be LGBT.
https://www.nbcnews.com/feature/nbc...-likely-identify-straight-study-finds-n989976
Archive Link: https://archive.ph/PSIQB

Children of homosexuals are more likely to be homosexual and engage in that lifestyle.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/16613625/
Archive Link: https://archive.ph/Bz6jv

Children of lesbians parents are more likely to engage in homosexuality and grow out to be homosexual.
https://psycnet.apa.org/record/1996-01705-001
Archive Link: https://archive.ph/SCNhF

Compared to kids of heterosexual parents, children of same-sex parents are 1.7 – 12.1 times more likely to be homosexual themselves.
https://www.researchgate.net/public..._on_an_examination_of_multiple_sources_ofdata
Archive Link: https://archive.ph/wfVH1

Children raised by lesbian parents are significantly more likely to grow out to have same-sex attraction, sexual minority identity, and same-sex sexual experiences.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30888553/
Archive Link: https://archive.ph/auwg5

33% of Adult children of lesbian and gay parents are nonheterosexual in sexual attraction and 40% have a sexual identity other than heterosexual
This is much higher than children of heterosexuals in general population.
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/00918369.2022.2086750?journalCode=wjhm20
Archive Link: https://archive.ph/wip/WT9EY

1995 study found 10% of kids of gay parents were non heterosexual, significantly higher rate than kids of heterosexual parents at the time.
https://www.semanticscholar.org/pap...brow/a62c668264abea0e88161cfe7a1627937d1371f5
Archive Link: https://archive.ph/wip/dAJP4

38.8% of female children of lesbian parents saw themself as part of queer community and 30% of male children of lesbians did so too, they reported that their parents influenced their attitudes towards homosexuality and gender roles
42% described challenges relating to their ability to trust other people.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/18194035/
Archive Link: https://archive.ph/wip/G5ZdQ

Trans​sexuals

At follow-up, 12% were judged to have GID or gender dysphoria. Regarding sexual orientation, 32% were classified as bisexual/homosexual in fantasy, and 24% were classified as bisexual/homosexual in behaviour.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18194003/

Brain structures of adolescents with gender dysphoria are in accordance with brains of their natal sex.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/25720349/

Transsexuals have higher rates of drug and alcohol abuse, prostitution, incarceration, unemployment, homelessness and suicide attempts than normal people.
http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/group/gender/transgender/

Transsexuals are 4 times more likely to live in extreme poverty than the general population. http://www.transequality.org/sites/default/files/docs/resources/NTDS_Report.pdf#page=8

Transsexuals are twice as likely to be unemployed as the general population.
http://www.transequality.org/sites/default/files/docs/resources/NTDS_Report.pdf#page=9

The Corrosive Impact of Transgender Ideology, by Joanna Williams.
https://www.civitas.org.uk/content/files/2454-A-The-Corrosive-Impact-of-TI-ppi-110-WEB.pdf
https://web.archive.org/web/2023041...-A-The-Corrosive-Impact-of-TI-ppi-110-WEB.pdf

Against the normalisation of gender dysphoria.
https://thelibertarianrepublic.com/the-case-against-normalizing-gender-dysphoria/

Trans issues and later life.
https://www.ageuk.org.uk/globalasse...eets/fs16_trans_issues_and_later_life_fcs.pdf

Male to female transgenders, as shown by brain comparisons, have male brains, not female brains.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/21467211/

Non-white transsexuals are 4 times as likely to be unemployed as the general population.
http://www.transequality.org/sites/default/files/docs/resources/NTDS_Report.pdf#page=9

Transsexuals are twice as likely to be homeless as cisgendered people.
http://www.transequality.org/sites/default/files/docs/resources/NTDS_Report.pdf#page=10

1 in 5 transsexuals have been homeless at least once in their lives. http://www.transequality.org/sites/default/files/docs/resources/NTDS_Report.pdf#page=10

44% of transsexuals with a job are underemployed.
https://www.hrc.org/press-releases/transgender-workers-at-greater-risk-for-unemployment-and-poverty

Only 21% of transsexuals can successfully pass as the opposite gender (2010).
https://web.archive.org/web/2018050...ads/reports/reports/ntds_report_on_health.pdf

1 in 2 transgender individuals will experience sexual violence.
https://centerforfamilyjustice.org/community-education/statistics/

16% of transsexuals have been sent to jail or prison, compared to 2.7% of the general population.
https://web.archive.org/web/2017011...E_Trans_People_Police_Incarceration_Facts.pdf

20% – 40% of homeless children are transsexuals.
https://www.americanprogress.org/is...ransgender-youth-homelessness-by-the-numbers/

Transgenders are 2.5 times more likely to use cocaine or meth. https://www.addictioncenter.com/addiction/lgbtq/

STDs​

According to the CDC, overall 42% of transgenders have HIV currently according to research done in 7 large US cities (2019-2020).
http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/group/gender/transgender/

Overall 28% of transgenders have HIV according to a systematic review of literature.
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10461-007-9299-3

Transgenders are much more likely to have HIV.
Male to female transgenders in South America are up to 95 times more likely to have HIV than the general population.
Female to male transgenders are up to 7 times more likely to have HIV globally.
https://www.aidsmap.com/news/mar-20...ive-global-burden-hiv-among-transgender-women
https://www.aidsmap.com/news/mar-20...v-trans-men-nearly-7-times-more-likely-global
https://www.aidsmap.com/news/mar-20...s-require-tailored-and-specific-interventions

One literature review one found that:
47% of transgenders report binge drinking within the past 3 months.
For comparison, binge-drinking within the general US population is only around 17.1%.
34.9% of transgender adults report the current use of cigarettes despite only 22.4% of cisgender adults reporting the same.
transgender individuals are more than 4 times as likely to use e-cigarettes than cisgender individuals.
Transgender individuals are more than twice as likely to report lifetime prevalence of marijuana addiction than cisgender individuals.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34444595/

According to the American Heart Association (2019), transgender men are up to four times more likely to suffer from myocardial infarctions, also known as heart attacks, than cisgender men.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30950651/

Transsexuals are four times more likely than the average person to be infected with HIV (2010). https://web.archive.org/web/20140310021000/http://www.nbcnews.com/id/40279043/ns/health-health_care/

Mental Health​

Transsexuals are more likely to have autism than the general population. http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00787-005-0469-4
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31732891/
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/25744543/

High levels of narcissistic rage are present in non-homosexual, autogynephilic MtF transsexuals - this explains why transgenders often furiously lash out at those who criticise their fetish or refuse to coddle them in their delusions.
http://www.annelawrence.com/shame_&_narcissistic_rage.pdf

53% of mothers of transsexual children have Borderline Personality Disorder, compared to only 6% of mothers of normal children.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2016237

In Finland, 75% of kids in clinic for gender dysphoria suffer from a psychopathology separate of gender dysphoria.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/25873995/

In Finnish clinics, among kids with gender dysphoria, 26% have autism, 55% have depression and 53% have anxiety.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/25873995/

Transsexuals are several times more likely than normal people to have schizophrenia.
http://www.hindawi.com/journals/schizort/2014/463757/

42% percent of the patients treated for GID were diagnosed with one or more personality disorders.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15865950/

Over 70% of transgender adolescents have ASD, ADHD and other mental disorders.
“Diagnoses for children and adolescents were attention deficit disorders (transfeminine 15%; transmasculine 16%) and depressive disorders (transfeminine 49%; transmasculine 62%), respectively. For all diagnostic categories, prevalence was several-fold higher among TGNC youth than in matched reference groups”.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29661941/

Transgenders and non-binary people were more likely to be associated with bullying and aggressive behaviours than the contrary. This is due to constant vigilance and anticipation of being victimised through the development of hostile or depressive attribution bias thus predisposing transgender youth to detect victimisation by their peers where none was actually intended.
https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.612424/full#h4

1/3 transsexuals are being treated for mental health. http://www.medicaldaily.com/transgender-people-more-likely-develop-depression-and-anxiety-247044

A 30 year review of literature found that transsexualism is a variant of borderline pathology.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/6389823/

Subscribe now

Share

“For she is the breath of the power of God, and a pure influence flowing from the glory of the Almighty: therefore can no defiled thing fall into her.

For she is the brightness of the everlasting light, the unspotted mirror of the power of God, and the image of his goodness.

And being but one, she can do all things: and remaining in herself, she maketh all things new: and in all ages entering into holy souls, she maketh them friends of God, and prophets.”

It is evident that all that exists bears resemblances and differences. They are unified in that they exist, and different in that there is multiplicity to compare. If all things were multiple, but not unified, truth itself would be dependent on the stance of separate beings. This claim is self-defeating, given that it would imply its own assertion to be a stance-dependent truth, and therefore not universal. Therefore, all things have unity. If all things are ordered, there must be a unifying principle, that is, absolute unity, from which all order must proceed, otherwise unity would proceed from nothing, and thus not exist. Unity is said “absolutely” and “in itself” without regard to another. For this reason, it is as God the Father, for so also is the Father without regard to another and hypostatically “in Himself”. This is the meaning of God’s message to Moses, “I AM WHO I AM”.

God has maximal intellect, to say otherwise is to deny He is God. He also is intelligible, as an intelligible universe would be unable to proceed from an unintelligible being. Maximal intellect requires one to understand himself perfectly. Given God’s intelligibility and maximal intellectuality, He thus knows Himself perfectly. The act of knowing inherently and fundamentally creates a relationship between the knower and that which is known. A humans knowledge of oneself can exist without changing the fundamental nature of the human, and is thus an accident. Because God is absolute unity, His characteristics and His essence are identical, therefore God’s perfect knowledge of Himself is not an accident, but it is His essence.

Aquinas defines a person as “a subsisting relation in an intellectual nature”, meaning it is self-contained and independent of any subject, has relation to other persons, and is able of intellectual thought. The relationship within God’s self-understanding is what generates a person, God the Son, as it is subsisting (is God Himself, not an attribute of Him), relational (relationship between knower and known), and intellectual (intellect itself).

The Holy Spirit follows the same logic; God’s subsisting self-love that exists between the Father and the Son exists as the essence of God, not as His attributes, is relational, and fully rational.

The explanation I gave of primordial truth is from the perspective of Faustian, Christian culture. But the concept of “absolute unity”, from which intellect is begotten and love is proceeded, is not unique to our understanding. In fact, this idea has been understood across all major religions.

Greek philosophy viewed absolute unity as The One, without multiplicity, and beyond all being. From the One, the Nous is emanated, the realm of pure intellect, containing Platonic forms and perfect archetypes of all things. The Anima Mundi proceeds from the Nous as serves as an intermediary between the realm of Forms and the material world. It is what animates and organises cosmos with intelligence and goodness.

Kabbalistic Judaism teaches that absolute unity takes the form of Ein Sof (אֵין סוֹף), understood as God’s pure and unique essence, prior to any self-manifestation or creation. Chokmah (חָכְמָה) is primordial wisdom emanated from the will of God, and Ruach (רוח הקודש) is the influence and actions of God relating to His creations.

In Islam we find Allah to be completely simple (emphasised in the Islamic concept of the Tawhid), maximally great, and the origin of all things. The ʿAql (عَقْل) is considered to be the Arabic equivalent to the Greek Nous, regarded by Islamic Neoplatonists to correspond in many respects to the Logos Christology. Al-Rūḥ (الروح) directly translates to Spirit, and refers to Allah’s prophetic revelations or commands given to humans.

In Hinduism, particularly the Vedanta school, Brahman (ब्रह्मन्) is the supreme existence, or absolute reality. It is fully eternal, conscious, irreducible, infinite and omnipresent. Hinduism lacks a single equivalent of God the Son, the Nous, Logos, or divine intellect. The closest correspondent is the Ishvara (ईश्वर), the manifested form of the Brahman. Shakti (शक्ति) is the power that underlies all existence, and that which sustains it.

Partial possession is when a being genuinely participates in a certain quality, yet does not have it to the maximal degree possible given the limitations of the nature of that being. To identify partial possession of perfection, you establish the existence of complete possession of perfection, that is, the fulfilment of the natural end of a partially perfect being, since the defective state of being is defined in terms of what it lacks (e.g. a seed is only a seed insofar as it is ordered towards growth into an organism. Although it has not fulfilled that potential yet).

Consequently, everything that participates in perfection only partially is ordered towards full participation possible. As humans were made in God’s image, humans partially possess unity, goodness, and perfection and are therefore ordered towards maximal participation in those things proportionate to our limited human nature, similar to how an unfinished triangle is ordered towards full possession of the essence of “triangleness”.

The purpose of religion is to succeed in this goal, to unify man with God. But it would be impossible for humans, as sinful, limited being, to be able to connect with the perfect transcendent creator. The only way for man to connect with God in a way that does not undermine God’s ultimate supremacy over all things would be for the connection to arise from God’s abilities rather than our own. Many religions rely on man’s own will to ascend towards unity with God, yet given man’s depraved nature accepted by those same religions, it would be impossible for us to ascend towards perfection without the interference of perfection itself. Christianity is the only religion that recognises Jesus as the Christ; that is, the anointed one. Through assuming human nature God makes the sacrifice that allows all humans to come to him.

Subscribe now

Share

The second depiction is the one only used by atheists who pretend they care about science. Jesus is darker-skinned with short curly hair.

First and foremost, the Bible rarely ever references the appearance of Jesus Christ. The only mentions are Revelation 1:14-15 and Isaiah 53:2-3. Revelation describes His head and hair as white as wool or snow; it’s obvious that this passage is describing His heavenly appearance, as it says that out of His mouth went a sharp two-edged sword (which is also spoken of in Revelation 19:15).

Isaiah 53:2 says that the future messiah will have “no form or majesty that we should look at him, nothing in his appearance that we should desire him.” So it is most likely that Jesus wasn’t exceptional, at least for His social stratum.

Jesus was a Levantine man, so He would have had olive skin. Levantine people are genetically closer to Europeans than to Africans, so He was certainly not Black. Levantine people had a phenotype that was short-headed and high-skulled, with a flat occiput and hooked nose, often black-haired with light brown skin, medium height and thickset build. Body hair was abundant; the eyebrows were thick; chin was weak, and the lower lip was full. This phenotype was common in mountain regions of Asia Minor, especially Armenia and Anatolia. It was found in ancient Sumerians, Babylonians, Hittites, and Cypriots around 4000 BC.

To get a better understanding of the likeness of Jesus, we must look at His earliest depictions. Because of God’s second commandment forbidding the worship of engraven images, no figure art of Jesus was made until the third century. The earliest known image with the intent of depicting Jesus was a mockery, in which a man bows down to Jesus, who has the head of a donkey, with a text written saying “Alexamenos worships his God.” Illustrations of Jesus’ facial features only arose in the early third century, prior to Christ Pantocrator or Christian institutionalisation in Europe. The first known portrait we have of Jesus shows Him as having light-brown to fair skin.

The only other pre-Constantine depiction in which His face is clearly visible I’m aware of shows Him surrounded by the Apostles at the last supper. He has an olive skin tone and medium-long hair, and does not have a beard. Other pre-Constantine depictions are a lot less centred on His face, but rather His miracles. The only difference is that Jesus has short hair. Prior to leaving His job as a carpenter, it is most likely His hair was short, since that was the social expectation, as seen in 1 Corinthians 11:14. After He became a religious leader, He may have grown it out, since that was more common for people whose life was centred around spiritual devotion and leadership, such as the Nazarites, whom, although Jesus was not one of them, His practices and life bore resemblance to. So it is not impossible that Jesus had long hair.

After Constantine the Great legalised Christianity, the face of Jesus adapted to Greco-Roman culture. Jesus became more Mediterranean (which isn’t entirely unrealistic due to the genetic similarities between southern Europeans and Levantines). The Jesus we know today appeared in the Middle Ages with the pseudepigraphal Letter of Lentulus, which describes Jesus’ brow as “smooth and very cheerful with a face without wrinkle or spot, embellished by a slightly reddish complexion. His nose and mouth are faultless. His beard is abundant, of the colour of his hair, not long, but divided at the chin. His aspect is simple and mature, his eyes are blue-gray and bright”. We know this letter to be a forgery as there was no Roman governor of Judea named Lentulus, and it first appeared 1,200 years after Christ’s life.

If the Shroud of Turin is legitimate, we would almost know exactly how Christ looked.

Critics of the legitimacy of the Shroud argue that the radiocarbon dating done in 1988 proves it was from the fourteenth century. Since that dating was done, many problems have been discovered concerning the protocol the researchers used. The sample of cloth used for the carbon dating (known as the Raes sample) is not of the same composition of other areas of the Shroud. In fact, Joseph Marino and Sue Benford show that there are 16th Century fibers woven into the Raes samples and in the sample taken for the 1988 carbon dating (immediately above the Raes samples). Further research done on the Raes samples shows that the combined evidence from chemical kinetics, analytical chemistry, cotton content, and pyrolysis/mass spectrometry proves that the material from the radiocarbon area of the Shroud is significantly different from that of the main cloth. The radiocarbon sample was thus not part of the original cloth and is invalid for determining the age of the Shroud.

In fact, Dr. Max Frei used sticky tape samples from the Shroud of Turin by pressing the tape onto the cloth with his thumb, causing dust, pollen and other particulate matter to stick to the tape and be lifted from the fibers of the Shroud. Dr. Frei found that the pollen grains on the Shroud were from now extinct plants indigenous to Palestine.

It could not have been an artistic project, as scientists from the Shroud of Turin Research Project (STURP) determined that there are no brush strokes, pigments or dyes on the Shroud. The research of John P. Jackson, a founding member of STURP, suggests that a burst of vacuum ultraviolet radiation may have turned the Shroud of Turin into a perfectly sensitive medium for recording the body’s image. Creating such an image would require billions of watts of light energy, far exceeding the capabilities of any known UV source today. Additionally, the radiation would need to produce light without generating heat, as the accompanying heat would have vaporized the cloth instantly. In 2010, Paolo Di Lazzaro and his team further tested this theory. They concluded that UV photons could account for the thin coloration and the image’s unique appearance in areas where the cloth didn’t touch the body.

Beyond just the face of Jesus, His height remains a topic of contention. The average height of a Galilean man at the time was 155–170 cm. If going purely off averages, Jesus would have been short compared to modern height. If we trust the Shroud of Turin to truly be Jesus of Nazareth, He would’ve been 178-185 cm, significantly taller than the average man.

Christian art has often depicted Jesus as gaunt, as that fits His role as the suffering servant and what He endured after being captured. However, prior to His devotion to public ministry at the age of 30, due to Jesus’ job as a carpenter, which involves lifting heavy weights for long periods, He was most likely very fit, with low-to-moderate body fat. Although after He left His job for His divine mission, He probably would have become less strong, though He was still able to carry a 55 kg cross 600 metres uphill after being tortured almost to death.

Based on all the evidence I have presented, we can understand to a certain extent the likeness of Christ. Fair to olive skin tone, medium to long brown hair, a short beard, somewhat long face, somewhere between ectomorph and mesomorph body type, and height ranging anywhere from 155-185 cm. The most accurate artistic depiction, in my opinion, come from the Byzantine Empire, or in Eastern Orthodoxy.

Finally, why does it even matter? Christ became incarnate, not for the sanctification of a race, culture, or country but for the salvation of all human beings (though this does not impede our right to those things). Christ could be Nordic, East Asian, or African and it wouldn’t matter in the slightest. The reason He needed to be from the Middle East was so that He could fulfill God’s Covenant with the Israelite people, and bring about the New Covenant, that is between God and anyone who chooses to follow Him.

Galatians 3:28: There is neither Jew nor Greek: there is neither bond nor free: there is neither male nor female. For you are all one in Christ Jesus.

Subscribe now

Share

The supreme function of statesmanship is to provide against preventable evils. In seeking to do so, it encounters obstacles which are deeply rooted in human nature.

One is that by the very order of things such evils are not demonstrable until they have occurred: at each stage in their onset there is room for doubt and for dispute whether they be real or imaginary. By the same token, they attract little attention in comparison with current troubles, which are both indisputable and pressing: whence the besetting temptation of all politics to concern itself with the immediate present at the expense of the future.

Above all, people are disposed to mistake predicting troubles for causing troubles and even for desiring troubles: “If only,” they love to think, “if only people wouldn’t talk about it, it probably wouldn’t happen.”

Perhaps this habit goes back to the primitive belief that the word and the thing, the name and the object, are identical.

At all events, the discussion of future grave but, with effort now, avoidable evils is the most unpopular and at the same time the most necessary occupation for the politician. Those who knowingly shirk it deserve, and not infrequently receive, the curses of those who come after.

A week or two ago I fell into conversation with a constituent, a middle-aged, quite ordinary working man employed in one of our nationalised industries.

After a sentence or two about the weather, he suddenly said: “If I had the money to go, I wouldn’t stay in this country.” I made some deprecatory reply to the effect that even this government wouldn’t last for ever; but he took no notice, and continued: “I have three children, all of them been through grammar school and two of them married now, with family. I shan’t be satisfied till I have seen them all settled overseas. In this country in 15 or 20 years’ time the black man will have the whip hand over the white man.”

I can already hear the chorus of execration. How dare I say such a horrible thing? How dare I stir up trouble and inflame feelings by repeating such a conversation?

The answer is that I do not have the right not to do so. Here is a decent, ordinary fellow Englishman, who in broad daylight in my own town says to me, his Member of Parliament, that his country will not be worth living in for his children.

I simply do not have the right to shrug my shoulders and think about something else. What he is saying, thousands and hundreds of thousands are saying and thinking – not throughout Great Britain, perhaps, but in the areas that are already undergoing the total transformation to which there is no parallel in a thousand years of English history.

In 15 or 20 years, on present trends, there will be in this country three and a half million Commonwealth immigrants and their descendants. That is not my figure. That is the official figure given to parliament by the spokesman of the Registrar General’s Office.

There is no comparable official figure for the year 2000, but it must be in the region of five to seven million, approximately one-tenth of the whole population, and approaching that of Greater London. Of course, it will not be evenly distributed from Margate to Aberystwyth and from Penzance to Aberdeen. Whole areas, towns and parts of towns across England will be occupied by sections of the immigrant and immigrant-descended population.

As time goes on, the proportion of this total who are immigrant descendants, those born in England, who arrived here by exactly the same route as the rest of us, will rapidly increase. Already by 1985 the native-born would constitute the majority. It is this fact which creates the extreme urgency of action now, of just that kind of action which is hardest for politicians to take, action where the difficulties lie in the present but the evils to be prevented or minimised lie several parliaments ahead.

The natural and rational first question with a nation confronted by such a prospect is to ask: “How can its dimensions be reduced?” Granted it be not wholly preventable, can it be limited, bearing in mind that numbers are of the essence: the significance and consequences of an alien element introduced into a country or population are profoundly different according to whether that element is one per cent or 10 per cent.

The answers to the simple and rational question are equally simple and rational: by stopping, or virtually stopping, further inflow, and by promoting the maximum outflow. Both answers are part of the official policy of the Conservative Party.

It almost passes belief that at this moment 20 or 30 additional immigrant children are arriving from overseas in Wolverhampton alone every week – and that means 15 or 20 additional families a decade or two hence. Those whom the gods wish to destroy, they first make mad. We must be mad, literally mad, as a nation to be permitting the annual inflow of some 50,000 dependants, who are for the most part the material of the future growth of the immigrant-descended population. It is like watching a nation busily engaged in heaping up its own funeral pyre. So insane are we that we actually permit unmarried persons to immigrate for the purpose of founding a family with spouses and fiancés whom they have never seen.

Let no one suppose that the flow of dependants will automatically tail off. On the contrary, even at the present admission rate of only 5,000 a year by voucher, there is sufficient for a further 25,000 dependants per annum ad infinitum, without taking into account the huge reservoir of existing relations in this country – and I am making no allowance at all for fraudulent entry. In these circumstances nothing will suffice but that the total inflow for settlement should be reduced at once to negligible proportions, and that the necessary legislative and administrative measures be taken without delay.

I stress the words “for settlement.” This has nothing to do with the entry of Commonwealth citizens, any more than of aliens, into this country, for the purposes of study or of improving their qualifications, like (for instance) the Commonwealth doctors who, to the advantage of their own countries, have enabled our hospital service to be expanded faster than would otherwise have been possible. They are not, and never have been, immigrants.

I turn to re-emigration. If all immigration ended tomorrow, the rate of growth of the immigrant and immigrant-descended population would be substantially reduced, but the prospective size of this element in the population would still leave the basic character of the national danger unaffected. This can only be tackled while a considerable proportion of the total still comprises persons who entered this country during the last ten years or so.

Hence the urgency of implementing now the second element of the Conservative Party’s policy: the encouragement of re-emigration.

Nobody can make an estimate of the numbers which, with generous assistance, would choose either to return to their countries of origin or to go to other countries anxious to receive the manpower and the skills they represent.

Nobody knows, because no such policy has yet been attempted. I can only say that, even at present, immigrants in my own constituency from time to time come to me, asking if I can find them assistance to return home. If such a policy were adopted and pursued with the determination which the gravity of the alternative justifies, the resultant outflow could appreciably alter the prospects.

The third element of the Conservative Party’s policy is that all who are in this country as citizens should be equal before the law and that there shall be no discrimination or difference made between them by public authority. As Mr Heath has put it we will have no “first-class citizens” and “second-class citizens.” This does not mean that the immigrant and his descendent should be elevated into a privileged or special class or that the citizen should be denied his right to discriminate in the management of his own affairs between one fellow-citizen and another or that he should be subjected to imposition as to his reasons and motive for behaving in one lawful manner rather than another.

There could be no grosser misconception of the realities than is entertained by those who vociferously demand legislation as they call it “against discrimination”, whether they be leader-writers of the same kidney and sometimes on the same newspapers which year after year in the 1930s tried to blind this country to the rising peril which confronted it, or archbishops who live in palaces, faring delicately with the bedclothes pulled right up over their heads. They have got it exactly and diametrically wrong.

The discrimination and the deprivation, the sense of alarm and of resentment, lies not with the immigrant population but with those among whom they have come and are still coming.

This is why to enact legislation of the kind before parliament at this moment is to risk throwing a match on to gunpowder. The kindest thing that can be said about those who propose and support it is that they know not what they do.

Nothing is more misleading than comparison between the Commonwealth immigrant in Britain and the American Negro. The Negro population of the United States, which was already in existence before the United States became a nation, started literally as slaves and were later given the franchise and other rights of citizenship, to the exercise of which they have only gradually and still incompletely come. The Commonwealth immigrant came to Britain as a full citizen, to a country which knew no discrimination between one citizen and another, and he entered instantly into the possession of the rights of every citizen, from the vote to free treatment under the National Health Service.

Whatever drawbacks attended the immigrants arose not from the law or from public policy or from administration, but from those personal circumstances and accidents which cause, and always will cause, the fortunes and experience of one man to be different from another’s.

But while, to the immigrant, entry to this country was admission to privileges and opportunities eagerly sought, the impact upon the existing population was very different. For reasons which they could not comprehend, and in pursuance of a decision by default, on which they were never consulted, they found themselves made strangers in their own country.

They found their wives unable to obtain hospital beds in childbirth, their children unable to obtain school places, their homes and neighbourhoods changed beyond recognition, their plans and prospects for the future defeated; at work they found that employers hesitated to apply to the immigrant worker the standards of discipline and competence required of the native-born worker; they began to hear, as time went by, more and more voices which told them that they were now the unwanted. They now learn that a one-way privilege is to be established by act of parliament; a law which cannot, and is not intended to, operate to protect them or redress their grievances is to be enacted to give the stranger, the disgruntled and the agent-provocateur the power to pillory them for their private actions.

In the hundreds upon hundreds of letters I received when I last spoke on this subject two or three months ago, there was one striking feature which was largely new and which I find ominous. All Members of Parliament are used to the typical anonymous correspondent; but what surprised and alarmed me was the high proportion of ordinary, decent, sensible people, writing a rational and often well-educated letter, who believed that they had to omit their address because it was dangerous to have committed themselves to paper to a Member of Parliament agreeing with the views I had expressed, and that they would risk penalties or reprisals if they were known to have done so. The sense of being a persecuted minority which is growing among ordinary English people in the areas of the country which are affected is something that those without direct experience can hardly imagine.

I am going to allow just one of those hundreds of people to speak for me:

“Eight years ago in a respectable street in Wolverhampton a house was sold to a Negro. Now only one white (a woman old-age pensioner) lives there. This is her story. She lost her husband and both her sons in the war. So she turned her seven-roomed house, her only asset, into a boarding house. She worked hard and did well, paid off her mortgage and began to put something by for her old age. Then the immigrants moved in. With growing fear, she saw one house after another taken over. The quiet street became a place of noise and confusion. Regretfully, her white tenants moved out.

“The day after the last one left, she was awakened at 7am by two Negroes who wanted to use her phone to contact their employer. When she refused, as she would have refused any stranger at such an hour, she was abused and feared she would have been attacked but for the chain on her door. Immigrant families have tried to rent rooms in her house, but she always refused. Her little store of money went, and after paying rates, she has less than £2 per week. “She went to apply for a rate reduction and was seen by a young girl, who on hearing she had a seven-roomed house, suggested she should let part of it. When she said the only people she could get were Negroes, the girl said, “Racial prejudice won’t get you anywhere in this country.” So she went home.

“The telephone is her lifeline. Her family pay the bill, and help her out as best they can. Immigrants have offered to buy her house – at a price which the prospective landlord would be able to recover from his tenants in weeks, or at most a few months. She is becoming afraid to go out. Windows are broken. She finds excreta pushed through her letter box. When she goes to the shops, she is followed by children, charming, wide-grinning piccaninnies. They cannot speak English, but one word they know. “Racialist,” they chant. When the new Race Relations Bill is passed, this woman is convinced she will go to prison. And is she so wrong? I begin to wonder.”

The other dangerous delusion from which those who are wilfully or otherwise blind to realities suffer, is summed up in the word “integration.” To be integrated into a population means to become for all practical purposes indistinguishable from its other members.

Now, at all times, where there are marked physical differences, especially of colour, integration is difficult though, over a period, not impossible. There are among the Commonwealth immigrants who have come to live here in the last fifteen years or so, many thousands whose wish and purpose is to be integrated and whose every thought and endeavour is bent in that direction.

But to imagine that such a thing enters the heads of a great and growing majority of immigrants and their descendants is a ludicrous misconception, and a dangerous one.

We are on the verge here of a change. Hitherto it has been force of circumstance and of background which has rendered the very idea of integration inaccessible to the greater part of the immigrant population – that they never conceived or intended such a thing, and that their numbers and physical concentration meant the pressures towards integration which normally bear upon any small minority did not operate.

Now we are seeing the growth of positive forces acting against integration, of vested interests in the preservation and sharpening of racial and religious differences, with a view to the exercise of actual domination, first over fellow-immigrants and then over the rest of the population. The cloud no bigger than a man’s hand, that can so rapidly overcast the sky, has been visible recently in Wolverhampton and has shown signs of spreading quickly. The words I am about to use, verbatim as they appeared in the local press on 17 February, are not mine, but those of a Labour Member of Parliament who is a minister in the present government:

“The Sikh communities’ campaign to maintain customs inappropriate in Britain is much to be regretted. Working in Britain, particularly in the public services, they should be prepared to accept the terms and conditions of their employment. To claim special communal rights (or should one say rites?) leads to a dangerous fragmentation within society. This communalism is a canker; whether practised by one colour or another it is to be strongly condemned.”

All credit to John Stonehouse for having had the insight to perceive that, and the courage to say it.

For these dangerous and divisive elements the legislation proposed in the Race Relations Bill is the very pabulum they need to flourish. Here is the means of showing that the immigrant communities can organise to consolidate their members, to agitate and campaign against their fellow citizens, and to overawe and dominate the rest with the legal weapons which the ignorant and the ill-informed have provided. As I look ahead, I am filled with foreboding; like the Roman, I seem to see the River Tiber foaming with much blood.

That tragic and intractable phenomenon which we watch with horror on the other side of the Atlantic but which there is interwoven with the history and existence of the States itself, is coming upon us here by our own volition and our own neglect. Indeed, it has all but come. In numerical terms, it will be of American proportions long before the end of the century.

Only resolute and urgent action will avert it even now. Whether there will be the public will to demand and obtain that action, I do not know. All I know is that to see, and not to speak, would be the great betrayal.

Subscribe now

All major religions are founded on a metaphysical reality. This transcendent state of being and knowledge is in essence unknowable; however, elements of it can be found across all different cultures, such as archetypal myths, sacred geometry or similar ethical philosophies.

Christianity is the greatest continuation of this primordial reality as it best reflects the truth of the One, Nous and Psyche, found in neoplatonic metaphysics. The One is God the Father, the ultimate source of all reality and creation (Genesis 1:1). The One emanates the Nous, which is God the Son, the incarnation of the Logos, and the intelligent structure of the universe (John 1). From the Father and the Son proceed the Psyche, or the Holy Spirit, the giver of life to the physical realm, and that which sustains it (Psalm 104:30).

This divine structure is followed by the cosmic order and the natural order, both created by God. Beneath God exists the Angels, then man, the animals, plants, and finally minerals.

Position in this hierarchy is determined by the degree of one’s perfection. Perfection in metaphysics simply means the fullness of one’s being, if a being lacks all potentiality, it is pure act, making it a perfect, full being.
According to St. Thomas Aquinas’ argument from motion, we observe that potential motion can become actualised motion. Only actual motion can convert potential motion into actual motion, because motion cannot be actual and potential at the same time, it is clear that nothing can move itself; therefore, everything in motion must be moved by something else. A sequence of motion cannot infinitely regress, therefore, there must be a first mover, God.

God is a fully actual being; if He had potentiality, something would be able to actualise Him, meaning something is above Him, making Him no longer God. The lower something is in the Great Chain, the less actualised it is. Plants are beneath humans because their ability to actualise their potentiality is limited as plants do not contain intellect or will. Humans have the ability to actualise more of their potential, as their potentials exist within the bounds of their power, intelligence, and rationality, which is much greater than that of plants.

Just as this hierarchy based on Aristotelian potentiality and actuality is present between different metaphysical groups, it is evident that it also exists within those same groups. We may be created equal in rights, but not in abilities. Some human beings have less intellect or power than others, which limits the extent to which they can actualise their potentialities, rendering them less actual, and consequently less perfect. This forms a hierarchy, not only between groups of beings, but within those groups themselves.

II - Natural Hierarchy and Biological Leninism

In the natural order, hierarchy exists in the process of natural selection. Humans are superior to other animals not only because of our metaphysical abilities, but because of our natural abilities. Humans have adapted over millions of years to our environment, giving us mental capacities superior to any other creature, allowing us to subordinate the natural world.
It would be irrational to think that natural hierarchy only exists interspecifically, as human populations are subject to the same selective traits as any other species. As in the rest of nature, different human beings evolved so that our traits give us advantages in different environments, with groups or individuals that do not adapt dying off.

Prior to the 19th century, due to high infant mortality rates, people with poor immune systems or other genetic dysfunctionalities would likely die before they could pass on their genes, keeping the genome healthy. 84% of the genome is active in the brain, and so mental dysfunctionalities were selected against, whilst things like prosocial religion, good physical and mental health, and overall wellbeing were selected for. With the collapse of infant mortality, society became more dysgenic, and deleterious mutations accumulated more frequently in the population. Now, modern society, through the perversions of Leftism, seeks to elevate dysgenic practices to normalcy. Conservatism is correlated with all the selected traits previously mentioned; physical wellbeing, mental wellbeing, and religion, whilst Leftism is correlated with the opposite; physical weakness, genetic diseases, mental illness, physical ugliness, and so forth.

“In every society degenerate elements sink constantly to the bottom: exhausted families, downfallen members of generations of high breed, spiritual and physical failures and inferiors. One has only to glance at the figures in meetings, public-houses, processions, and riots; one way or another they are all abortions, men who, instead of having healthy instincts in their body, have only heads full of disputatiousness and revenge for their wasted life, and mouths as their most important organ. It is the dregs of the great cities, the genuine mob, the underworld in every sense, which everywhere constitute the opposition to the great and noble world and unite in their hatred of it” - Oswald Spengler, The Hour Of Decision

The modern managerial class requires loyalty to sustain itself, as does any other ruling class. It gains its loyalty through the promotion of the genetically weak in society, because giving the promise to any marginal group that they can elevate their status will always keep those people loyal, as they see no better option for themselves (Similar to how Lenin promised the lower class better living conditions, only in modern society the lower class are the biologically inferior; hence the name Biological Leninism). Groups such as homosexuals, ethnic minorities, religious minorities, the disabled, and the mentally ill all are dependent on the state’s protection (through DEI, discrimination laws, hate speech laws, welfare etc.), and so they remain loyal to the managerial class. Any society that elevates the genetically weak to levels of power, is doomed to fail, as they were born with traits that have kept them in their low status for most of history.

III - The Failure of Liberalism

Biological Leninism is not the only problem with Liberalism. Liberalism is a fundamentally flawed system from its conception, as it views a nation’s history, organismically developed over thousands of years, as something that can simply be ignored through the writing of constitutions that enforce abstract (and false) ideas of equality on a naturally hierarchical population.

Man is a corrupt and irrational creature, and so what gives man the right to write down his own laws, and put them above the law of God? Liberalism places man above God, inverting the natural order of society, yet fails to justify man’s right to be able to replace divine law.

When the natural order of hierarchy, monarchy, and aristocracy are subverted, man is left to his own devices. The state of nature for man is violent, nasty, and brutish, which is why we gave the social contractor and divine law authority over us, to prevent us from this state. Whether or not you believe religion to be true, it is undeniable that religion gives people a moral code to live by, something that prevents us from acting in accordance with our state of nature.

We saw the consequences of the abolition of divine authority in the French Revolution. Although liberty, egality, and fraternity were promised, when legal and moral foundations of society were abolished, what was brought were mass executions, political purges, instability, suppression of the Church, and economic decline.

Cultural decay happens when the fundamental principles of any given society are suppressed, because you cannot have a society without the sustainment and enforcement of those principles.

IV - The Solution to Cultural Retardation

I’ve established that the modern West promotes the genetically inferior and is based on a rejection of its own history, and so it follows that we should try and revitalise the hierarchical nature of the West. The best way to do this would be through implementing a hereditary, monarchical system. Monarchy has been the traditional western form of governance for the past millennia, is the governmental institution that the West was build upon, and it reflects both metaphysical and natural hierarchy. Monarchy is also a much greater system than democratic liberalism.

From birth, a monarch is guaranteed maximal education in all areas needed to govern. Your average voter in all likelihood is uneducated when it comes to politics, and usually votes out of personal interest. I don’t see any good reason as to why those people should have any control over the fate of a nation. For the leaders themselves, there is no guarantee they will receive proper education, and there have been several US presidents that did not graduate from college.

I would also argue that the interests of a Monarch for his nation are comparatively better to that of a democratically elected leader.

Democratic leaders are incentivised to commit immoral acts if it increases their chance of taking or holding power, such as lying, cheating or accepting bribes. The two main reasons leaders become corrupt is so that they can secure one of two things; money and power. A monarch already has those things secured for them from the moment they are born onwards, and so has no good reason to become corrupt.
A democratic leader may promise unlikely or impossible things to people, such as “free stuff”, to gain them votes, but gives them no reason to follow through with those promises.

A democratic leader has around 4-5 years in office, depending on which country you live in. Because of this, they will not have any incentive to make long term decisions with the nation, as after they leave office the country they once were in charge of will belong to their political rival, who will likely reverse any decisions they made within their short tenure. This gives them good reason to only push for short term benefits but also extract as much wealth as possible before their rival enters office. A monarch on the other hand, not only is incentivised to make decisions spanning throughout their whole lifetime, but also to leave the country in a good state to be inherited by the heir to the throne, usually a close relative.

The interests of a monarch are aligned with the interests of a nation. As the people of a nation are part of his estate, for himself to accumulate wealth, wealth must also be accumulated in his estate. The riches and power of a Monarch arise only from the riches, strength, and reputation of his subjects, for no King can be rich, glorious, or secure, whose subjects are too weak to fight a war against the nation’s adversaries. By contrast, a democratic leader can enrich himself at the expense of his country, as the country is not his own property, rather it is something he temporarily governs, and the democratic leader treats the nation like a disposable resource because he will not bear the long-term costs of mismanagement.

V. Civilisational Decline

The erosion of Western Culture is not an isolated occurrence, independent to our geographical location, but instead it is the destiny of every High Culture in history. Cultures function organismically. They have a birth, development, decline, and death. This is contrary to the linear view of history presented by figures such as Marx and Engels, which posits that history moves in a single direction, and does not repeat itself.

According to Oswald Spengler, there is a “Culture” and “Civilisation” period to every cultural organism. During the cultural phase, society is focused inwardly, with religion, philosophy, architecture, art, and mysticism being the center and foundation of the attitudes and actions of that Culture. In this stage the social institutions of hierarchy, monarchy, and patriarchy are formed.

After the Culture exhausts itself, it turns to rationalism and materialism, ideas contrary to its original formation and is forced to expand into unknown territories, turning it into a materialist society centered on politics, economics, and law.

To quote Francis Parker Yockey (Imperium, pg. 387):

”The Culture-crisis of Rationalism was a part of the Destiny of the West. All previous Cultures have gone through it. It marks the turning point from the inwardness of Culture to the externalized soul-life of Civilization. The focal idea of Rationalism is liberty — which means liberty from the bonds of Culture. Napoleon liberated war from the style of Fontenoy, 1745, where each side courteously invited the other to fire the first shot. Beethoven liberated music from the form-perfection of Bach and Mozart. The Terror of ’93 liberated the West from the idea of the sacredness of Dynasty. Materialistic philosophy liberated it from the spirit of religion, and ultra-Rationalism then proceeded to liberate science from philosophy. Waves of revolution liberated the Civilization from the dignity of the State and its high traditions into the dirt of party-politics. Class war was liberation from social order and hierarchy. The new idea of “humanity” and “The Rights of Man” liberated the Culture from its old pride of exclusiveness and feeling of unconscious superiority. Feminism liberated women from the natural dignity of their sex and turned them into inferior men.”

Spengler identifies the existence of eight different high cultures: the Babylonian, the Indian, the Chinese, the Egyptian, the Classical (the Culture of Greece and Rome), the Arabian (also called the Magian by Spengler), the West European (or Faustian) Culture, and finally the Mayan-Aztec Culture of Mexico.

Western Culture is Faustian, meaning is constantly striving for something it can not attain, just as Faust strove for unlimited knowledge. As the characteristics of a Culture are expressed all throughout that society, in music, art, architecture, military and so on, Faustian Culture is found in colonialism’s constant territorial expansion, infinitesimal calculus, Gothic cathedrals attempting to reach as high as possible, the invention of the telescope, astronomy etc.

Faustian Culture formed around the year 1000 AD, with the introduction of Feudalism after the Norman conquest. This period is when the religious and civic customs are in the process of formation. This is a very heroic epoch, as seen in the Viking conquests or tales like Beowulf . This period stayed intact for 500 years. After the Culture had solidified, the West entered its greatest, most expressive stage. The state becomes an aristocratic/dynastic monarchy, and colonialism, early science, music, philosophy, and art (mainly classicism and romanticism) reach its peak.

Then Culture reaches its end. The French and American revolution were the first signs of the West entering the Civilisational period. Society becomes democratic, cultural heritage and customs are disregarded, rural life is replaced with urbanism, religion and metaphysics make way for materialism and rationalism, mass politics, mass media, and mass production become normalised, life itself becomes negative (seen in the philosophy of Schopenhauer and Cioran). This lasts from the late 18th century to late 20th century.

Post-21st century is when the decline begins, the world gradually becomes a standardised bureaucracy with a global legal-economic system, and life descends to a level of general uniformity. Music, architecture, and art become dull imitations of previous works, or are intended purely for the purpose of rejection of traditional art styles, which reflects the spiritual death of the Culture. Democracy becomes something superficial, with actual power being in the hands of unelected individuals. People lose their sense of identity, birth rates collapse, and wealth is concentrated in few hands, leaving the population to support radical, populist leaders. This is where we’re at now.

If Spengler’s theory is correct, the future doesn’t improve comparative to the modern situation. Due to competing identities and the further political divide, elections will give way to civil wars. The people become loyal to individuals who challenge the establishment, rather than to the establishment itself. All consumption and entertainment are bread and circuses, classes continue their divide until they become closer to castes. After the 23rd century AD, technocracy and Caesarism are the only remaining forms of government, and decadent metropolises take over the countryside, as that is the only sustainable way of life for the economic system. The identity on which the Culture was built upon is replaced with foreign cultures who destroy that Culture from within.

Ancient Rome, and many other Cultures followed this same pattern. Early Rome was founded upon an origin myth. The city was created by Romulus and Remus, offspring of Mars. The unwritten code of behavioural models and social practices were distinguished from but in dynamic complement to written law, and the Roman Monarchy was formed. After its Culture had been defined, it entered Pax Romana, its golden age, with an increase in Roman imperialism, prosperous stability, hegemonic power, regional expansion, and relative peace and order. It became a Civilisation once the High Culture had exhausted itself, which led to large migration of Goths and other non-Roman people, fleeing from the Huns, into the Empire. Roman forces were unable to exterminate, expel, or subjugate them (as was their normal practice). Urban dependency and self-interest had replaced the traditional Roman values of trust, discipline, self-control, masculinity, binding religious practices, respect towards the gods, homeland, parents and family.

VI. The Survival of our Culture

The modern West faces a problem known as cultural parasitism; that is, foreign Cultures that inhabit the native Culture-body and undermine its will-to-power through refusal to integrate to the Culture-feeling, inevitably creating internal conflicts. Every High Culture has a destiny, a trajectory toward the fulfillment of its creative, spiritual, and political potential, when a foreign Culture exists within the Culture-body, even if not actively attempting to, the foreign Culture obstructs the native Culture’s ability to achieve their destiny by eroding the cohesion and unity of the native Culture.

Much like the existence of a virus in an organism provokes an immune reaction, for a Culture to survive, anything that prevents it from reaching its destiny must be subjugated or exterminated. When you have two distinct identities that are fundamentally in opposition to one another both exist under the same governing body, and when the parasite is spiritually without, but physically within, it becomes impossible for the government to satisfy the needs of the two Cultures. The racial and cultural loyalty of the parasites does not disappear once they are “part” of the native Culture. A Jew living in America remains more loyal to his jewry than to his American identity, and a Mexican living in America would rather fight for Mexico if a war broke out between the two. In the American war against Japan, the Americans did not use their Japanese conscripts, just as Europe discovered in the first two World Wars that it could not use Slavic Bohemians against Russia.

Racial and Cultural loyalty is greater than civic loyalty, and so for us to have a functioning nation, it must constitute only one race and one Culture. Unless the members of a foreign race are able to assimilate into the Culture of the host race (which is very difficult given their genetic predisposition), it is impossible for a multiracial Culture-body to survive.

“The State ought rather to consist of a single race, for a single race is united in its customs and habits which make for friendship between the citizens by reason of their likeness one to another. Hence States which were made up of diverse races have been destroyed owing to the dissensions which they had with one another through the diversity of their customs, for one part of the state joined forces with foreign enemies owing to its hatred of the other part.” - St. Thomas Aquinas

Liberalism will never present a sufficient solution to the cultural divide found within modern politics. Liberals seek to reconcile the differences between two different identities that cannot simultaneously exist under the same pretext of laws and customs. We have had our (((leaders))) replace us against our consent through the mass migration of non-Whites into our countries, they even admit this themselves.
The only viable solution I see would be through the removal or repatriation of the unassimilated Culture-parasites back to their own Culture, best achieved through mass deportations. Remigration involves systematically reversing laws and policies that permit and encourage mass immigration while implementing new laws and policies to facilitate and encourage mass emigration. “Diversity is our strength” is a complete lie. Strength only comes through unity, and diversity (of race and Culture) implies division.

Remigration is only possible if we give someone with the best interests of the nation in mind power. Democratic institutions will have the power to veto any movement towards the fulfillment of the Culture’s destiny, which should not be possible if we seek to save our Culture.

Remigration has been practiced several times throughout history, for example Jewish communities living in Spain that failed to integrate and engaged in predatory lending were expelled from the nation, unless they assimilated through conversion to Catholicism. After the expulsion began the Spanish Golden Age, arguably as a result of cultural homogenisation, which allowed Spain’s zeitgeist to be fully expressed.

VII. Corporatism and Command Economy

As is the case that nothing within the nation can oppose its destiny, the economy must exist to serve the people of a Culture and its needs. If the energy of an organism is being spent on something other than its own development, it is being wasted. Both Marxian socialism and laissez-faire capitalism create divide within a nation; between the upper and lower classes.

To solve this divide we must be able to unify both classes for the common good, which can be done through corporatism. Corporatism comes from the Latin word corpus, meaning body, as it seeks to treat the nation like a body. In a body you cannot have different parts acting in their own interest, as that would prevent the body from functioning as a collective. In a society, you cannot have separate classes or groups work only in their self-interest whilst disregarding the wellbeing of the nation. The working and upper class are both dependent on each other; the working class requires the leadership of those who are more suited to make decisions regarding finance, and the upper class requires the labour of the workers for the production of the materials used in the development of a nation. Any system that places these classes against each other will either collapse or not sufficiently promote the welfare of human beings.

The corporate state will be divided into national corporations governed by representatives of employers, workers and consumers, operating under the government. The state will lay down the limits within which industries may operate, and those limits will be the national welfare. Low-scale private ownership will be permitted and encouraged, insofar as it benefits the nation as well as the individual. All interests that operate against the nation will be rigorously suppressed.
The function of corporations will be to raise wages and salaries over the whole field of industry as rapid developments in the sphere of technology increase the power to produce, and consumption will be adjusted to production.

Members of corporations will vote on policies, which will then be discussed between the representative of the corporation and state officials, and disputes between different corporations are resolved by state action. Every divergent interest is therefore subordinate to the national will of the collective.

Modern economies prove centrally planned economies and government regulation to be a success. In China, major economic development is largely the result of activity within the public sector, the larger share of state-owned enterprises are favorable to long-run growth, and state investments neutralise the adverse effect of economic downturns on the regional level. Scandinavian countries have high state investment in areas such as universal healthcare, education, social protection (including pensions, parental leave, and unemployment benefits), and industry, and are regarded as having the highest standards of living worldwide.
Insulin prices in the United States are approximately 10 times more expensive than in Australia, the UK and Canada. This is due to a multitude of reasons, the most notable being the absence of price controls.

The free-market proposal of privatised banks is an unsubstantiated approach to banking. The Australian banking system during the 1860s had no central bank, no capital controls, few legal barriers to entry, no credible restrictions on assets, liabilities or bank capital, and no legally established price controls. Because of the lack of control over the inflows and outflows of capital; there will always be the possibility of rapid inflation of the commodity money base, which will allow a surge in credit. In Australia there was a surge of capital inflows between 1881-1885. Free banking allows for banks to buy the high-competition, poor quality assets which will be held on their books, only to collapse in value later.

To have a stable, productive nation, we must satisfy the needs of the people who uphold it; the workers. Only 37% of American workers feel satisfied with their wages. Capitalism incentivises companies to not pay their employees sufficient wages, despite earning enough to do so, which in itself refutes the claim that an increased minimum wage increases unemployment. In fact, US states that increased their minimum wage experienced higher employment than the ones that did not. Moreover, an increased minimum wage makes workers more productive, and increasing the federal minimum wage to $15 an hour would lift 7.6 million people in the United States out of poverty. Decreased suicide and smoking, lowered depression, improved diet, and reduced child neglect are all effects of a higher minimum wage. A $1 increase in the state-level minimum wage is associated with significant reductions in experiences of financial, partner-related, and total stressful life events.

VIII - Conclusion

Hierarchy is the underlying principle of all existence, material and immaterial. The structure of society must imitate this principle so that it is in accordance with reality. Liberal societies fail, as they reject the primordial truth of hierarchy, and instead supersede it with humanist dogma. Post-20th century Liberalism elevates the genetically weak underclasses for it to maintain its power. The re-implementation of hierarchical monarchy would threaten this degenerative system.

Every High Culture works like an organism, in that it has a trajectory that it must fulfill. When something obstructs the organism from achieving its destiny, the efforts of the organism must be directed at eliminating the obstructor, to the extent that the Culture is allowed to progress. Cultural-parasites poison the spirit of a nation, and should be forcefully removed to maintain the cohesion of the Culture.

Cultural-parasitism extends to the realm of the economic. When the capitalist and working classes are in opposition to one another; national unity is hindered. To solve this problem, the two classes must be subject to the collective will, manifested through the Corporate State. A State meant to subjugate that which is against the Culture, and uphold that which is for it.

Subscribe now

Share

The Russian Empire, particularly under the monarchy of Tsar Nicholas II, is known to be a complete failure, whose terrible economic policies were what caused the Russian revolution to take place. Nobody denies that Nicholas II was unprepared, he had inherited a semi-feudal nation, that was the last to abolish serfdom and industrialise. He had ascended to the throne after the death of his father, and was unskilled and untrained. But his rule was not as useless as some may say, although his country being incredibly backwards at the time, he and the Prime Minister had made many social, political and economic advances that are worthy of recognition. This essay will serve as an explanation of the success made by the Tsarist Empire between 1890 to 1917, and then show how his sovereignty was much greater than that of the Soviets.

(Note that if I don’t cite a claim, it’s because it was included in a previous citation)

Russia was likely the most backwards country in all of Europe at the time, its economic development throughout most of the 19th century was stagnant and little to none. However, after the ascension of Tsar Nicholas II to the throne in 1896, progress was starting to be made.

Since 1885, the rate of industrial growth in Russia was 5–6%, higher than Germany, and on the same level as the USA. This is largely the result of Russian rapidly developing railway system. Sergei Witte, Russia’s Prime Minister during most of Nicholas II’s reign, had continued the construction of the Trans-Siberian railway, which allowed for faster production and better transportation of resources like steel and coal, more mobility for Russian citizens, and opening up Siberia to economic and strategic advancements, as it had largely remained isolated until then. Between 1893 and 1902, Witte constructed 22,200 km of railway lines in ten years, (almost doubling Russia’s railway capacity), going from 30,600 km in 1890, to 53,200 km in 1900.

Sergei Witte had also increased steel production from 0.9 million tons in 1890 to 4.2 million tons in 1913, coal production from 6.6 million tons in 1880 to 36.2 million tons in 1913, and oil production from 3.8 million tons in 1880 to 9.2 million tons by 1900. Russia’s rapid industrial development consequently led to its urban population nearly doubling during his time in office.

The introduction of the Gold Standard had stabilised the ruble, this incentivised foreign investment from other countries, particularly France, whose investments had “multiplied severalfold in the 1890s”, going from 200 million rubles in 1890, to 900 million in 1900.

Soviet development was largely and continuation of the advancements made by Sergei Witte and Tsar Nicholas II, although faster. The first five year plan, implemented by Stalin with for the purpose of rapid industrialisation and mass collectivisation, had increased capital goods by 158%, consumer goods by 87% and total industrial output by 118%, however, to fund the industrialisation, peasants had to hand in a fixed amount of grain to be exported. Due to the scarcity of resources, the ones who accepted likely would have starved, causing the Soviet Famine of 1930-1933, which killed 3.3 to 7.5 million people, and the ones who refused would have been executed. There were over 400 “Peasant Disturbances” and 44 independent peasant uprisings in Russia between October and November in 1918.

From this treatment of Russian peasants arises the question of whether advancements in workers rights were made under Soviet rule. The mistreatment of workers was the backbone that justified the revolution. It would be difficult to argue that workers were treated well under Tsarist rule. What I will say is that they were treated comparatively better than the Soviets treated them.

Many reforms in workers rights made in the Russian Empire were a reaction to the social unrest caused by the 1905 revolution, some of them being the legalisation of trade unions, child labour under 12 being prohibited, and restrictions imposed between the ages of 12-18.

An example of a reform made pre-1905 is when on June 2, 1897, the maximum working day duration was lowered to 11½ hours, and holidays and Saturdays 10 hours, the previous having been 12-15 hours.

Now compare this to Soviet advancements of workers rights. During the period in which the Soviets adopted War Communism (1918–1921), trade unions were banned and strikes were illegal. Under Stalin, all trade unions allowed were state owned, however strikes remained prohibited, even after the war.

As previously mentioned, there were many peasant uprisings to due the collectivisation of grain, which intrinsically is a suppression workers’ rights, however the Cheka had also used terror tactics to force peasants into submission. During the Tambov rebellion, the Red Army engaged in the summary execution of civilian workers. Some villages were burnt to the ground, and the family members of rebels became hostages. 100,000 villagers, including 1,000 children, were sent to concentration camps in July 1921. There they suffered severely from cholera and typhus. The death rate is estimated to be around 15–20% per month for the Autumn of 1921. Around 15,000 were shot, and mass executions of suspected villagers and prisoners were frequent in the villages.

It wasn’t only the peasants who were affected, industrial workers who went on strike at the Putilov factory in 1919 were stormed by Cheka soldiers, 200 of whom were killed. Numerous strikes took place in the spring of 1919 in cities of Tula, Oryol, Tver, Ivanovo, and Astrakhan. Starving workers sought to obtain food rations matching those of Red Army soldiers. They also demanded the elimination of privileges for Bolsheviks, freedom of the press, and free elections. The Cheka suppressed all strikes, using arrests and executions.

Torture was also a tactic used by the Red Army against interrogees, at Odessa, the Cheka tied White officers to planks and slowly fed them into furnaces or tanks of boiling water. In Kharkiv, scalpings and hand-flayings were commonplace: the skin was peeled off victims’ hands to produce “gloves”. The Voronezh Cheka rolled naked people around in barrels studded internally with nails. Victims were crucified or stoned to death at Yekaterinoslav. The Cheka at Kremenchuk impaled members of the clergy and buried alive rebelling peasants. In Oryol, water was poured on naked prisoners bound in the winter streets until they became living ice statues. In Kiev, Chinese Cheka detachments placed rats in iron tubes sealed at one end with wire netting and the other placed against the body of a prisoner, with the tubes being heated until the rats gnawed through the victim’s body in an effort to escape.

Of course, the Tsarist regime was not perfect. For example, 200 peaceful protesters were killed on Bloody Sunday, but this was the result of Tsar Nicholas’ incompetence, rather than malevolence, as he did not order them to shoot.

It wasn’t just the working class who were affected, the clergy suffered the same persecution as the working class. Priests, monks and nuns were crucified, thrown into cauldrons of boiling tar, scalped, strangled, given Communion with melted lead and drowned in holes in the ice. An estimated 3,000 were put to death in 1918 alone. The Communist Party destroyed churches, synagogues, and mosques, ridiculed, harassed, incarcerated and executed religious leaders, under the policy of State Atheism.

Between June 1918 and January 1919, 18 bishops, 102 priests, 154 deacons, 94 monks and nuns were killed, and there were four bishops and 211 priests imprisoned. The state seized 718 parishes and 15 monasteries, it closed 94 churches and 26 monasteries, it desecrated 14 churches and 9 chapels, it forbade 18 religious processions, it dispersed by force 41 religious processions, and it interrupted church services with insults to religious feelings in 22 cities and 96 villages.

I would argue that, whilst the Tsarist empire was an incredibly flawed regime, the continuation of the progress made under Tsar Nicholas II would have led to a highly prosperous nation, to the likes of Germany or the United Kingdom, had it not been for the revolution. Not only is the claimed success of Soviet economic development the continuation of Tsarist reforms, it cost millions of human lives due to its rapid policy-making over slower changes. The Soviets did not benefit the workers that the revolution was fought for, it had only prejudiced them through mass collectivisation, brutal repressions and desecrating their religion. After 1905, freedom of speech, press, assembly and association were granted in the October Manifesto, whilst it is well known their absence in the Soviet Union.

And so, out of fear of the potential return of the White Army, Vladimir Lenin and the Bolsheviks had the former Tsar and his family murdered in their home on July 17, 1918, including his 13 year old son, Alexei Nikolaevich.

1. Anna Demidova

2. Dr. Eugene Botkin

3. Olga Nikolaevna

4. Tsar Nicholas II

5. Tatiana Nikolaevna

6. Anastasia Nikolaevna

7. Empress Alexandra Feodorovna

8. Ivan Kharitonov

9. Alexei Trupp

Subscribe now

Feminism is based on the idea that we should try to elevate women’s status in society to the same level as men. This ideology has influenced modern society probably more than any other, with most institutions praising it as heroic and empowering.

There are four waves of feminism, the first wave was the suffragette movement, which primarily sought to give women equal voting rights. The second wave of feminism arose alongside the civil rights movement, and wanted to disestablish patriarchal institutions such as the family, as well as giving women reproductive rights. The third wave, which came about in the 1990s, is arguably the beginning of what we call “wokeness”, as it was aimed at making feminism more ethnically diverse, as well as accepting transsexuals into the feminist movement, and then finally fourth wave feminism is the feminism of today, that is largely a continuation of the third wave, only with the addition of the internet. This critique will be direct at second wave feminism onwards, note that I will only be talking about Western society.

The problem with fourth wave feminism is that it is based on a faulty point, that modern women are oppressed by our society. Of course, there are some areas that remain male dominated, but this is much more likely a result of biological differences between males and females and not a socially constructed oppressive system being imposed on women.

If the patriarchy as described by feminists were real, there would not be certain legal and social advantages women have over men, for example:

Women have the ability to steal a man’s sperm through sperm stashing, improper use of assisted reproductive technology or coercion, which then they can use to impregnate themselves and sue a man for child support. 10.4% of men in the United States reported ever having an intimate partner who tried to get pregnant when they did not want to or tried to stop them from using birth control. This also applies to rape, where a woman who raped a man (or underage boy) and was consequently impregnated from it, can sue that man for child support.

In some US states, if a woman applies for child support and she names who the father is, even without evidence, that man has around 30 days to prove he isn't the father, or else he is declared so and forced to pay child support.

Men have essentially no reproductive rights. A woman can kill her fetus through abortion, and a man has no legal say in the matter, despite it being his offspring too. Nor can a man opt out of parenthood in the same way a woman can using abortion, they are financially obligated to a child that the woman may have tricked him into having.

Merely the claim of rape is enough to convict a man, even if there is an absence of any other evidence. Examples: People v. Scott (California, 2013), U.S. v. Relford (U.S. Military Court, 2018), State v. Romero (New Mexico, 2013) 4% to 9% of rape cases were designated false according to a 2009 study of rape cases across eleven countries in Europe.

Women are favoured in court over men, even for the same crime, with women’s sentences being around 33% shorter than males.

Men are more likely to be homeless than women in most countries, and all US states.

Non-consensual male genital mutilation is legal in all US states, and most western countries, despite female genital mutilation being illegal in those same places.

If we truly lived in a patriarchal society, this would not be the case. However some disparities between men and women still exist, and are commonly used to prove the existence of a patriarchy. The claims being:

“What about the gender pay gap?”

“What about societal pressures put on women?”

“What about rape and domestic violence?”

First of all, on the gender pay gap, we are told that for every 1 dollar a man makes, a woman makes 77 cents, a 23% decrease in total wages. With this knowledge we would be able to conclude that companies will choose to hire only women to save money, but this is not the case. If businesses can pay women 23% less for the same work, yet still often choose to hire men, it suggests that men must offer something to businesses that women do not.

The problem with the 23% gap in wages is that it only accounts for unadjusted wages, without accounting for other factors. When controlling for average incomes, there is little to no gender wage gap. The average income of males being higher than females is for two reasons: women choose lower paying jobs, and businesses prefer male workers. Because women are more obligated to family duties than men, even if they are employed, they’re more likely to choose jobs with less work hours, for obvious reasons, and jobs with less hours tend to pay less. Businesses prefer male workers because men do not require maternal leave. Another reason why businesses prefer men, and why even when working for the same job men are paid more, is because men work more on average.

This study from 2023 conducted in Germany shows us that men are more likely to work overtime than women by at least two hours a week, and that women are more likely to work lower paying jobs for the reasons already mentioned.

When including unpaid work (e.g. household work) women work more, but in the US, men work roughly 1.6 hours more a day than women, at least in terms of paid labour, which explains why men are paid more. If a man and a woman work the exact same job, in the exact same position, working the exact same hours, it is more than likely they will be paid the same.

Secondly, I’ve seen this point mentioned a lot by feminists, that women, even today are pressured into roles of motherhood, or unrealistic beauty standards. This is only really true when regarding more rural, conservative areas, but within urban and modernised places, or within society’s views as a whole, their claims are unfounded.

Women are rarely ever pressured to become mothers, in fact we see that the opposite is the case, most media and advertising promote women becoming “girlbosses” and rejecting patriarchal norms. If you disagree I’d like you to find me one example of a corporation or media outlet that has claimed women should have children and become homemakers.

Furthermore, most people of all ages believe abortion should be legal in most if not all cases, which is a belief contrary to a traditional view on women and sexual ethics. Additionally, only 19% of adults think women should return to their traditional place in society, and only 29% of adults think women not ever having children is a bad thing.

Beauty standards for men are more unrealistic than for women. Physical traits that males find attractive in females are generally mutable (e.g. weight) whilst traits females find attractive in males tend to be immutable (e.g. height). Both sexes are subject to unrealistic beauty standards that are unnatural and largely the result of the pornography industry (which feminism helped promote), but that is not to say that we should abolish beauty standards, as feminists seek to do, rather they should be attainable in both males and females.

Lastly, domestic violence is largely misrepresented by society. An analysis of data on young US adults aged 18 to 28 years from the 2001 National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health reveals that in 49.7% of abusive relationships, the violence was reciprocal, and in nonreciprocally violent relationships, women were the perpetrators in more than 70% of the cases.
As for rape, males are overwhelmingly overrepresented in rape perpetrators, because testosterone is correlated with higher libido, on top of that, testosterone causes more risk-taking, aggressive behaviour. Men are also more physically capable than women, and have the ability to overpower them, which women do not, so even if hypothetically the intention to commit rape was higher among females, the percentage of rapes actually committed would still be dominated by males. I say this because feminism attempts to reshape society on the basis of equal rights, yet biology is not something that can be reshaped, men are always going to commit more rapes, even under a matriarchy.

The higher aggression and risk-taking of males also explains why patriarchy is the only system that arises naturally. Males dominate positions of power because assertive, aggressive behaviour is what succeeds, especially in primitive societies, where physical strength is required, but also in modern society, where the ability to take risks is rewarded. Feminism is inherently a revolt against biology, meaning it is founded on the denial of the biological differences between men and women. Patriarchy is not a cultural phenomenon, rather it is a biological reality, something that cannot be completely abolished through social activism or legal reforms.

The effects of the attempt to reverse human biology have been devastating. Human societies form natural connections based on our biology, one of them being the family. Feminism has advocated for taking women out of the family, into their own hands, essentially killing the family structure. But has society really improved since the family became unessential, and deemed oppressive? The life satisfaction of both men and women has dropped since the 1970s, especially amongst Gen Z, despite advances in women’s rights, additionally, women’s mental health has gotten significantly worse, even worse than the oppressed housewife feminism sought to liberate. Even the left admits this. When people are part of decentralised communities in which their economic and social relations are intertwined, they are happier than when they serve bureaucrats with no personal connection to themselves.

If you still don’t believe me, nearly twice as many married mothers say they are “very happy” as unmarried women without children.

(Whilst there were problems with the family institution, such as marital rape being legal, rape rates have only been increasing since the 1940s)

Despite the claims of many feminists, feminism inadvertently serves capitalism through promoting women abandoning their roles as mother and homemakers, and and placing them in the workforce, generating twice as much profit for CEOs. One of the most common reasons for divorce is financial problems, so due to feminism nearly doubling the competition for employment, wages have gotten lower, in part causing such high divorce rates.
This is also why feminism was heavily promoted by corporations, and still is today.

Not only is taking women out of the family a net negative for society in terms of happiness, but the feminist ideal is also incompatible with society in general. The average birth rate per woman for replacement level needs to be a minimum of 2.1, if women are to put their careers before their role as a mother, or if they choose not to have children at all, it is unlikely the birth rate will be able to stay above 2.1, meaning if a society is to promote or tolerate feminism, it will be an unsustainable society destined to eventually collapse.

In conclusion, feminism in theory and in practice is incompatible with civilisation, it has subverted social and moral institutions that have built and defined the Western world for a millennium, and has torn down the connections that have given human life its meaning, in favour of “freedom”, which has really offered us little to nothing, with its societal effects being more than adverse.

Subscribe now

A social construct is an idea or concept that is created, accepted, and maintained by society’s collective agreement, for example, money. Money is not something we find in nature; it only has value because society collectively agrees it has value. Race Denialism claims that the concept of race is similar to this, in that it holds no biological reality and is purely the result of society collectively deciding it to be true.

However, Race does not fit under this definition. If race were purely socially constructed, we would not find that toddlers, with no concept of social norms or rules, prefer faces similar to those of their own race. This comes from our tribal instinct to stick among our own kind, which includes race.

The definition of races is organismic groups which differentiated from one another as a result of historic patterns of filiation; they are groups, which, due to histories of sufficient linebreeding, form intraspecific natural divisions, ones which can be identified based on the correlations between the organisms’ inherited character.

We know this because we observe that different populations that have bred in isolation for tens of thousands of years have developed genetic variations, from them adapting to their environment.

From a purely observational standpoint, we can notice these racial differences.

The first and most obvious difference is melanin levels. People from Africa have higher melanin levels due to higher UV, whilst in Europe UV is lower, so there is less melanin in White people’s skin. This explains why rates of skin cancer are much higher for the White population in places like Australia, compared to Aboriginals. There are differences in hair colour and texture, eye colour, and nasal shape across continents.

But the differences go beyond just appearance. We also find cranial differences in different races, with European skulls being more narrow, having a smaller prognathism and a parabolic dental arch, whilst African skulls are longer, and have more prognathism. Artificial Intelligence can determine someone’s race merely from medical images. There’s also differences in body proportions, malaria resistance, lactose tolerance, behaviour etc.

These differences arose from our adaptation to our environment, geographical isolation, and natural selection. Europeans are more likely to have blonde hair and blue eyes due to sexual selection in low-light environments, since brown eyes are more protective towards UV. Tightly coiled hair arose to protect the scalp from sun-exposure. Stockier bodies with shorter limbs help conserve heat, and so it is found in Arctic peoples such as the Inuit, whilst slender bodies with longer limbs are more common in Africa. Narrower noses are common in colder, drier climates to warm and humidify the air before it reaches the lungs. Wider noses are found in warm, humid climates, which is why the phenotype of Africans involves a wider nose. European environments never selected for malaria resistance because there was no risk of malaria. Africans didn’t develop lactose tolerance because pastoralism was not as common.

Haplogroups also exemplify genetic differences between different genetic ancestries. The R1b haplogroup (most common in western Europe) is defined by the single nucleotide polymorphism M343, whilst E1b1a (most common in Sub-Saharan Africa) is defined by the single nucleotide polymorphism M2.

On the topic of behaviour, we observe from the study already cited that “African-American male carriers of the 2-repeat allele scored significantly higher on an antisocial phenotype index and on measures assessing involvement in violent behaviours over the life course. There was not any association between the 2-repeat allele and a continuously measured psychopathic personality traits scale. The effects of the 2-repeat allele could not be examined in Caucasian males because only 0.1% carried it.”

This anti-social behaviour also explains in part why black people commit more crime than any other group relative to their share of the population in all countries where race and crime have been documented. In the United States, Black people make up 13% of the population, yet in 2023 they accounted for 42.6% of total arrests, compared to White people making up 59.3% of the population and being 53.5% of total arrests. Blacks also commit 51.2% of homicides, compared to 45.8% being committed by Whites. Whilst most crime is intraracial, we find that the majority of interracial crime involves a Black perpetrator and White victim. 28% of African-American males will end up in state or federal prison.

It may be argued that these high incarceration rates are the result of racial discrimination; however, after including covariates for self-reported lifetime violence and IQ, the racial gap is completely accounted for.

We also find that the climate in Africa is more unstable and unpredictable than in Europe, because of irregular rainfall, droughts and high historical pathogen load. This type of climate is better for r-selection, which exemplifies traits including higher fecundity, early maturity, lower parental investment and lower lifespan. Europe has a more predictable environment, which increases K traits like long life expectancy, lower fecundity and higher lifespan. Further evidence of this is that the highest fertility rates worldwide are from Africa, as well as African-Americans having the second highest fertility rate in the US. Puberty starts earlier for Blacks than Whites, almost half of Black mothers are single compared to only 14% of White mothers, meaning there is little parental investment from Black fathers, and African-American life expectancy at birth is persistently five to seven years lower than European Americans.

Behaviour is not the only cognitive differences between races; there are also race differences in intelligence.

On average, Asians score the highest in IQ tests, followed by Whites, Hispanics, then Blacks. Most people accept this to be true, yet have different explanations as to why, most of which involve systemic racism. It would be untenable to claim this is entirely genetic, as it is with all differences I have mentioned, but we cannot deny genetics influences IQ disparities between races. First of all we know that IQ is around 57% to 73% genetic, with recent studies suggesting 80%, so it is unlikely the racial gap will be fully accounted for even with compensatory education. The problem with compensatory education such as the Head Start programme is that it has limited long-term effects on IQ, as the heritability of IQ is primarily genetic. Many may say that the IQ difference is a result of Blacks being poorer than Whites; however, an article from “The Journal of Blacks in Higher Education” shows that Whites from families with incomes below $20,000 have a mean SAT score that was 12 points higher than Blacks from families that make between $160,000 and $200,000.

A difference in IQ scores also cannot be attributed to systemic racism. If the society we lived in were governed by White supremacists in a way that put other races down and White people on top, it would not be the case that Asians score the highest on IQ tests and school grades, as well as having a higher median household income than any other race.

Sub-Saharan Africa also has the lowest IQ rate worldwide.

We cannot attribute all these differences in intelligence and behaviour to merely culture and socioeconomic status; to do so would be conflating cause and effect. Before colonisers had arrived to Africa, outside of Ethiopia, no African country innovated the plow. Similarly, systems of writing were largely restricted to the same region, though also encompassing Sudan and Somalia. Also absent was the wheel.

If all African countries are poor only because of colonialism, we would expect other colonised countries to be just as poor as Africa. Ireland was colonised and exploited for hundreds of years by the British, yet they are just as advanced today as any other European country. What about Singapore? Or Malaysia? Ethiopia was never colonised and is still much less advanced than all European countries. Colonialism does not affect countries so much so that it is impossible to reverse the damage done, and even this logic assumes colonialism was a net negative. If you use colonialism to explain why Africa is so far behind, you need to explain why Africa was so far behind even before colonisers had arrived.

Africa is disadvantaged not because of colonialism, but because the people there had adapted to their environment, which did not select for the same traits it did in Europeans. This doesn’t mean that White people are superior; it means that different societies and races have adapted in different ways to different environments, giving us all different traits that are best suited for where they are genetically adapted for.

From all the racial disparities mentioned we understand that race is a valid taxonomic grouping; however, critics will still raise some objections. The most common being “Humans are 99.9% genetically similar, therefore race cannot be biological”; this 99.9% similarity refers to base pairs. A single base pair difference in a gene can dramatically change the functions and the effects of the gene. This means that the percentage of genes that differ between humans could theoretically be very large, even if the percentage of base pairs that differ is very small. Human beings also share 98.8% of our DNA with chimps and 90.38% of our DNA with pigs, but that does not undermine the biological differences between human, chimps and pigs; instead it proves that there can still be large genetic differences even if shared DNA is high. It is also possible that human genetic variation may be higher, with some studies suggesting the genetic similarity is around 99.5% instead.

Race Denialism often requires you to redefine what race is. Some examples of arguments made by people who deny race are along the lines of “The concept of racial categories has changed over time”, which only proves that our understanding of race has changed, as it has with many other concepts, but it does in no way prove that race in and of itself is not biologically real.

Another fallacious argument made is that race cannot strictly be divided into separate categories with which there are no exceptions, therefore it is not grounded in biology. But there are many things in which the line that separates two categories is non-existent, but that does not undermine the categories themselves. The existence of intersex people does not undermine the existence of male and female, just as the existence of racially mixed individuals does not disprove the existence of race.

Jewish-American evolutionary biologist Richard Lewontin, one of the main figures behind the conception of race as socially constructed, wrote in “The Apportionment of Human Diversity” that race does not exist genetically because we find that most genetic variations exist within populations rather than between them, with approximately 85% of genetic variation existing within populations, while only about 15% exists between them. A. W. F. Edwards, arguably one of the most influential mathematical geneticists, criticised Richard Lewontin’s interpretation of the genetic data in “Human Genetic Diversity: Lewontin’s Fallacy”, demonstrating that analysing each locus independently and evaluating the proportion of variation at single loci ignores the fact that allele frequencies across loci are correlated due to population structure; when multiple loci are analysed together, even small average differences between populations at each locus can combine to form distinct, classifiable patterns. Whilst not denying Lewontin’s data, he concluded that aggregate patterns across many loci contain enough information to accurately assign individuals to their population of origin.

Another study done in 2005 analysed genetic clusters and demonstrated that there was near-perfect correspondence between genetic clusters and four self-reported race/ethnicity categories (White, African American, East Asian, and Hispanic). Autosomal genetic distances based on SNPs show that the difference between Europeans and Sub-Saharan Africans is 0.153, between the Chinese and Sub-Saharan Africans it is 0.192, which sometimes is enough to consider different groupings as subspecies.

The final and in my opinion, the least convincing argument against race realism is that the concept of race realism has been used to promote eugenics, Nazism, White supremacy, and the like, or that the people who push race realism are racists themselves. This commits the moralistic fallacy and genetic fallacy by assuming that the negative consequences of something prove that that thing is not real, and that the negative origin of a claim is proof that that claim is untrue. Even if race realism could have negative consequences, we still shouldn’t deny its existence. The biological reality of sex has been used to justify sexism, but to deny the existence of sex for this reason is pseudoscience in its purest form. The scientists and philosophers who pushed for Race Denialism were biased themselves, for example Franz Boas, Ashley Montagu, Richard Lewontin, and Stephen Jay Gould are all left-leaning and have used their work to push their own political agendas.

In conclusion, the claim that “race is a social construct” lacks sufficient evidence and is pushed only by people with ulterior motives. The people who do speak out against this are labeled as racist. Look at Dr. James D. Watson; after he claimed that there were differences in IQ between races, he was removed from his role as chancellor at Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory and revoked of all his honorary titles. Political correctness has influenced every sphere of society, including science; if a study discovers an unwanted truth, it must be labeled as false.

The consequences of the belief that there are no genetic differences between human populations have adverse effects on society, including the government spending billions of dollars trying to close racial disparities that are there as a result of unchangeable, evolutionary racial differences, which I will likely go over at another time. It is much more likely that society is a racial concept. Societies form on the basis of race and genetic differences, with each society’s customs and norms being shaped around its own racial differences. Whites are best fit for a society built around their behaviour and preferences, rather than the behaviour and preferences of Blacks, just as Blacks are best for a society built around them, and the same goes for every race, because every society developed in a way that is best for the race that created it. When we deny this fact we see that the government must try and account for racial differences, usually in the form of affirmative action, which requires you to put less meritable people ahead merely to try and remove the racial gap.

Subscribe now

Supply and Demand

A massive increase of immigrants into one’s country will naturally raise the demand for consumer goods, and other services, such as healthcare or housing. When demand increases more than supply, prices rise. This is because businesses recognise that people are willing to pay more for scarce goods or services. Therefore, a big increase in demand without a significant increase in the thing demanded will raise prices. This is known as demand-pull inflation. If the price of housing goes up, fertility rates will drop. And if fertility rates drop, there will be fewer workers, which then justifies the acceptance of even more immigrants into one’s country.

“But Chuddie! Don’t you know that immigrants increase the supply as well by working hard labour-intensive jobs!”

While it would be true that if immigrants increased supply as much as they increase demand, prices would not rise, immigrants in the UK have a higher unemployment rate than the native-born. Refugees are three times more likely to be unemployed than UK-born citizens. Bangladeshi and Pakistani people in the UK are more unemployed than any other ethnic group. And whilst EU immigrants are more employed than people born in the UK, about 129,000 immigrants came from EU countries in 2023, compared to 968,000 from non‑EU countries. So we can safely say that mass immigration is raising prices in the UK.

This also works for employment. An increase in the demand for employment allows companies to decrease their wages due to since the competition for employment is higher. So not only are prices going up, wages are getting lower.

Despite being more unemployed overall, when it comes to low-skill jobs, companies favour being able to pay you lower wages over skill. Because immigrants are more likely to apply for low-skill jobs, and work for less, immigrants are favoured over natives in the low-skill job market. Considering the fact that there are more applicants than job openings in the UK, this means that it is going to be harder for UK-born citizens to become employed. When someone tells you “immigrants are stealing the jobs”, this is what they mean.

“But what about muh innovation!”

Knowing that between 30% and 50% of non-white residents are non-UK born, and that 70% of Innovate UK applicants are white, it is unlikely that immigrants are as innovative as people may claim they are. In the United States, immigration is linked with an increase in innovation according to a study done by Shai Bernstein in 2022. This study uses patents to measure innovation, which is not a good measurement. To quote the People’s Policy Project (a left-wing think tank) on patents:

“The problem is that this is a completely ridiculous metric. Patents, especially in the US, are not a reliable indicator of innovation, but rather of patent trolling. We know this because in the last few decades, the US has seen an explosion in patenting activity but no corresponding rise in total factor productivity.”

UK studies on immigration and innovation are subject to the same problems as the American ones, as they both use patents to measure innovation. Although patent trolling is much larger in the US, it is still a problem in the UK, with 11% of patents issued being NPEs (non-practising entities).

The NBER working paper “Agglomeration and Innovation” by Carlino and Kerr (2014) states that “in surveys of Silicon Valley, 82% of Chinese and Indian immigrant scientists and engineers report exchanging technical information with their respective nations.” So America is receiving no geopolitical advantage on the world stage from the innovation that some immigrants do bring.

It is also important to note that Hispanics make up 44% of immigrants into the US, while only contributing to around 1.6% of innovation.

The Cost of Illegal Immigration

The UK government pays £12,000 per illegal immigrant. Depending on the estimates of how many illegal immigrants are in the UK, the annual cost ranges from £11 billion to £14 billion annually. This is all paid by the British taxpayer. To put this in perspective, the UK government spent around £2.3 billion on temporary accommodation for homeless households between 2023 and 2024.

In the US, illegal immigrants are a net fiscal drain on the economy, meaning they receive more in benefits than they pay in taxes.

Conclusion

If there are 1.2 million illegal immigrants in the UK, and it costs around £11,000 to £15,000 to deport a single illegal, the UK government would need to spend anywhere between £13.2 billion to £18 billion. Which may sound like a lot, but when you consider how much we already spend on illegal immigrants every single year, spending £18 billion only once doesn’t sound as bad. When it comes to legal immigration, I think it should be slowed down or restricted, unless the individual migrating promises economic growth and assimilation into the United Kingdom.

This is also not the only reason why mass migration is bad, there are many other effects it has on the social and cultural climate of a country. Even if the economic effects were positive, it would be justified to sacrifice the economic benefits to maintain a high-trust, homogeneous society. This blog is only meant to show you that there are actually little to no economic downsides in mass deportation and stricter immigration control.

Sources:

Breaking Barriers – Refugee & Asylum Facts

Ethnicity Facts & Figures: Latest UK Unemployment & Economic Inactivity

Migration Observatory: Migrants in the UK – An Overview

ONS: Long‑Term International Migration, Year Ending June 2023 (Provisional Report)

ONS: 2011 Census – Ethnicity & Religion of Non‑UK Born in England & Wales

Ethnicity Facts & Figures: People Born Outside the UK (Latest Data)

UKRI: Innovate UK Applicant Diversity Data 2022‑2023

ITIF: The Demographics of Innovation in the U.S. (2016 Report)

NBER Working Paper w30797

People’s Policy Project: “The Nordic Myths That Never Seem to Die”

NBER Working Paper w20367 — Agglomeration & Innovation

Pew Research: Key Findings About U.S. Immigrants (2025)

Hansard: Commons Debate on Illegal Immigration Costs (7 May 2024)

Hansard: Illegal Migration Bill Economic Impact Assessment (27 June 2023)

U.S. House Budget Office: Cost of Illegal Immigration to Taxpayers

UK Government: Immigrant Downgrading – Evidence from UK Panel Data

English deficiency and the native–immigrant wage gap

ONS: Jobs & Vacancies in the UK, July 2025 Bulletin

The Guardian: Home Office Deportation Flight Costs Per Person (2021)

World Bank Group: GDP per capita growth (annual %)

Subscribe now