Category Archives: Society

The Bible on Refugees

Recently, the migrant crisis has caused a lot of Christians to display their holiness by calling other people to let migrants in to rape their daughters. Generally, as with this example, these are rather vague allusions to the exodus or Christian charity. I’ve written about Christian ethno-nationalism before, but what does the Bible actually say about allowing hundreds of thousands of invading immigrants into your country?

First, in Levitical law it is repeated often and is very clear that the sojourner is to be fairly treated; he is not to be oppressed, he is to receive fair justice, and he is to given charity and love.

You shall not oppress a sojourner. You know the heart of a sojourner, for you were sojourners in the land of Egypt.
(Exodus 23:9 ESV)

For the assembly, there shall be one statute for you and for the stranger who sojourns with you, a statute forever throughout your generations. You and the sojourner shall be alike before the LORD. One law and one rule shall be for you and for the stranger who sojourns with you.”
(Numbers 15:15-16 ESV)

And when you reap the harvest of your land, you shall not reap your field right up to its edge, nor shall you gather the gleanings after your harvest. You shall leave them for the poor and for the sojourner: I am the LORD your God.
(Leviticus 23:22 ESV)

He executes justice for the fatherless and the widow, and loves the sojourner, giving him food and clothing. Love the sojourner, therefore, for you were sojourners in the land of Egypt.
(Deuteronomy 10:18-19 ESV)

On the other hand, the sojourner is to be forced to assimilate. There are repeated commandments that the sojourner must follow the laws and customs of his hosts.

Whoever blasphemes the name of the LORD shall surely be put to death. All the congregation shall stone him. The sojourner as well as the native, when he blasphemes the Name, shall be put to death. Whoever takes a human life shall surely be put to death. Whoever takes an animal’s life shall make it good, life for life. If anyone injures his neighbor, as he has done it shall be done to him, fracture for fracture, eye for eye, tooth for tooth; whatever injury he has given a person shall be given to him. Whoever kills an animal shall make it good, and whoever kills a person shall be put to death. You shall have the same rule for the sojourner and for the native, for I am the LORD your God.
(Leviticus 24:16-22 ESV)

For seven days no leaven is to be found in your houses. If anyone eats what is leavened, that person will be cut off from the congregation of Israel, whether he is a sojourner or a native of the land. You shall eat nothing leavened; in all your dwelling places you shall eat unleavened bread.
(Exodus 12:19-20 ESV)

but the seventh day is a Sabbath to the LORD your God. On it you shall not do any work, you, or your son, or your daughter, your male servant, or your female servant, or your livestock, or the sojourner who is within your gates.
(Exodus 20:10 ESV)

This assimilation is not absolute though. He is not to be forced to engage in religious sacrifice/ritual, although he is free to join.

Thus it shall be done for each bull or ram, or for each lamb or young goat. As many as you offer, so shall you do with each one, as many as there are. Every native Israelite shall do these things in this way, in offering a food offering, with a pleasing aroma to the LORD. And if a stranger is sojourning with you, or anyone is living permanently among you, and he wishes to offer a food offering, with a pleasing aroma to the LORD, he shall do as you do. (Numbers 15:11-14 ESV)

The foreigner is different from the citizen, though. The sojourner could not own land.

And Moses commanded the people of Israel according to the word of the LORD, saying, “The tribe of the people of Joseph is right. This is what the LORD commands concerning the daughters of Zelophehad: ‘Let them marry whom they think best, only they shall marry within the clan of the tribe of their father. The inheritance of the people of Israel shall not be transferred from one tribe to another, for every one of the people of Israel shall hold on to the inheritance of the tribe of his fathers. And every daughter who possesses an inheritance in any tribe of the people of Israel shall be wife to one of the clan of the tribe of her father, so that every one of the people of Israel may possess the inheritance of his fathers. So no inheritance shall be transferred from one tribe to another, for each of the tribes of the people of Israel shall hold on to its own inheritance.’”
(Numbers 36:5-9 ESV)

Here’s an interesting passage though:

And the LORD said to Moses and Aaron, “This is the statute of the Passover: no foreigner shall eat of it, but every slave that is bought for money may eat of it after you have circumcised him. No foreigner or hired worker may eat of it. It shall be eaten in one house; you shall not take any of the flesh outside the house, and you shall not break any of its bones. All the congregation of Israel shall keep it. If a stranger shall sojourn with you and would keep the Passover to the LORD, let all his males be circumcised. Then he may come near and keep it; he shall be as a native of the land. But no uncircumcised person shall eat of it. There shall be one law for the native and for the stranger who sojourns among you.”
(Exodus 12:43-49 ESV)

This suggest a difference between foreigners and sojourners. I’m not a Hebrew scholar, but this Hebrew scholar deals with that verse and states that the sojourner is someone who who is essentially a naturalized citizen. I looked up the words Brian Webster mentioned. Ger (often sojourner) is the one to whom all these protections apply. On the other hand, nekar (often foreigner) is used almost entirely negatively. The protections above are only for the ger and are not given to the nekar.

Foreigners (nekar) are to be barred from Israel’s religious practices and there is a constant stream of warnings to Israel against adopting the religious and cultural practices of foreigners:

“Thus says the Lord GOD: No foreigner, uncircumcised in heart and flesh, of all the foreigners who are among the people of Israel, shall enter my sanctuary.
(Ezekiel 44:9 ESV)

And Samuel said to all the house of Israel, “If you are returning to the LORD with all your heart, then put away the foreign gods and the Ashtaroth from among you and direct your heart to the LORD and serve him only, and he will deliver you out of the hand of the Philistines.” So the people of Israel put away the Baals and the Ashtaroth, and they served the LORD only.
(1 Samuel 7:3-4 ESV)

There are warnings against intermarriage with foreigners:

In those days also I saw the Jews who had married women of Ashdod, Ammon, and Moab. And half of their children spoke the language of Ashdod, and they could not speak the language of Judah, but only the language of each people. And I confronted them and cursed them and beat some of them and pulled out their hair. And I made them take an oath in the name of God, saying, “You shall not give your daughters to their sons, or take their daughters for your sons or for yourselves. Did not Solomon king of Israel sin on account of such women? Among the many nations there was no king like him, and he was beloved by his God, and God made him king over all Israel. Nevertheless, foreign women made even him to sin. Shall we then listen to you and do all this great evil and act treacherously against our God by marrying foreign women?”

And one of the sons of Jehoiada, the son of Eliashib the high priest, was the son-in-law of Sanballat the Horonite. Therefore I chased him from me. Remember them, O my God, because they have desecrated the priesthood and the covenant of the priesthood and the Levites.

Thus I cleansed them from everything foreign, and I established the duties of the priests and Levites, each in his work; and I provided for the wood offering at appointed times, and for the firstfruits.
(Nehemiah 13:23-31 ESV)

As well, God explicitly discriminates between different foreigners.

“No Ammonite or Moabite may enter the assembly of the LORD. Even to the tenth generation, none of them may enter the assembly of the LORD forever, because they did not meet you with bread and with water on the way, when you came out of Egypt, and because they hired against you Balaam the son of Beor from Pethor of Mesopotamia, to curse you. But the LORD your God would not listen to Balaam; instead the LORD your God turned the curse into a blessing for you, because the LORD your God loved you. You shall not seek their peace or their prosperity all your days forever.

“You shall not abhor an Edomite, for he is your brother. You shall not abhor an Egyptian, because you were a sojourner in his land. Children born to them in the third generation may enter the assembly of the LORD. (Deuteronomy 23:3-8 ESV)

Aliens with whom have dealt kindly with Israel should be treated well, but Israel was actively commanded not to pursue the prosperity or peace of aliens that dealt poorly with them.

He also repeatedlt orders the extermination of foreigners and refers to those not exterminated as barb and thorns:

And the Lord spoke to Moses in the plains of Moab by the Jordan at Jericho, saying, “Speak to the people of Israel and say to them, When you pass over the Jordan into the land of Canaan, then you shall drive out all the inhabitants of the land from before you and destroy all their figured stones and destroy all their metal images and demolish all their high places. And you shall take possession of the land and settle in it, for I have given the land to you to possess it. You shall inherit the land by lot according to your clans. To a large tribe you shall give a large inheritance, and to a small tribe you shall give a small inheritance. Wherever the lot falls for anyone, that shall be his. According to the tribes of your fathers you shall inherit. But if you do not drive out the inhabitants of the land from before you, then those of them whom you let remain shall be as barbs in your eyes and thorns in your sides, and they shall trouble you in the land where you dwell. And I will do to you as I thought to do to them.”
(Numbers 33:51-56 ESV)

Although, these were specific to genocidal conquests, not to immigrants, the thorns and barbs remarks would likely still apply to hostile migrants.

Also interesting is that among the mountain of curses listed for violating the covenant is this:

The sojourner who is among you shall rise higher and higher above you, and you shall come down lower and lower. He shall lend to you, and you shall not lend to him. He shall be the head, and you shall be the tail.
(Deuteronomy 28:43-44 ESV)


I might be mistaken, but as far as I recall, there are no specific commandments to the treatment of foreigners or immigrants, beyond the basic love your neighbours and help those in need commands which apply to everyone.


So, from all this, what’s the biblical Christian position on refugees:

Migrants you allow into your country as naturalized citizens and permanent residents are to be treated justly and charitably, but treating them justly also means applying the law against them (ie. the death penalty) when they commit crimes. All foreigners are to be assimilated into the dominant cultural and legal practices, although they can be exempted from strictly religious practices. They are not allowed to spread their religious practices to citizens. Although you can do so, there is no command to allow migrants into your country but there is a command to keep those migrants that would be harmful to your religion and traditions away from the assembly. You are to treat foreigners of friendly nations well in your country and can let them in, but you have no obligation to foreigners of hostile nations and should not let them in. Being ruled by naturalized foreigners is a curse and having hostile minorities is a thorn and a barb.


So, here is the biblical positions as applied to the current migrant crisis:

The foreigners migrating are generally from countries hostile to us, so we have no obligation to them, but, while we are inviting them to stay here, we should be treating them justly. Should they commit crimes (such as Rotherham) against our people and we should execute them. The current migrants have generally been thorns and barbs in our nations’ sides, so extermination is not out of the question. They are bringing foreign gods to our nations and should not be allowed to do so. Any we decide to keep should be forced to assimilate.

So, in sum, the biblical position is to feed the migrant horde, then send them back home, except for those who have committed crimes who should be executed. We should consider taking in Christian refugees and maybe Kurds and other allies who are friendly to us, but are not obligated to. Those foreigners who we’ve already allowed in should be treated justly, which includes expelling those groups who are committing crimes against our people and leading them to worship foreign gods.


Now, having said all this, it is debatable whether these laws cited are to apply only to the specific state of Israel or are more broad guidelines for all nations. I’m not sure myself, and probably, not being a theonomist, lean towards the former, but whatever the case, it is clear that the ‘let them all in’ doctrine is definitely not commanded by any honest reading of scripture and is in fact contradicted by many passages. In fact, scriptural remedies for the migrant crisis might be quite the opposite of what many Christians are now preaching.

Tending Your Garden

Not everyone can be above average, half of all people will be below average (more or less), and very few are special in any practically meaningful sense. These are truths that are self-evident, yet, inpractice, they are often forgotten.

Athelron has remarked (recently, when I began writing this post) on the save the world mentality he finds among his Silicon valley friends. The manosphere is full of people decrying “average” men and calling for men to become their own particular idea of a superman. Since Don’t Waste Your Life became a big hit, evangelicals have adopted the ‘don’t waste your life’ ethos. Throughout life, everybody seems to want to get involved in the big causes: poverty in Africa, violence in the Middle East, national politics, etcetera, etcetera.

Now none of this is necessarily bad in moderation: you should try to do good for the world around you, you should work to be a better version of yourself, and Christians should work to advance God’s kingdom, but it’s gotten to where the normal life is actively impugned. The family man is painted as a sucker wasting his life in a dreary cubicle, while the mother is painted for wasting her life on her children (rather than, ironically enough, spending it in the cubicle). Everybody has to be the best, to achieve more than their neighbour.

Yet this should not be. While yes, some people have to work on big things, on saving the world, on foreign missions, on becoming ubermensch, most people are not, and there is nothing wrong with that. In fact it is good that most people will not.

Throughout most of history, a man’s world would consist of his tribe or village, he would know about a Dunbar’s number’s worth of people throughout his life. A man could have a significant impact on this world. If you brought down a deer, everyone in your whole world would be fed for a day or two. If you were a blacksmith, you were probably the only one, the best one, in your village. It was easy to save the world when your world was a couple dozen people, it was easy to be (one of) the best at something when only a few other people in your entire world did what you did.

But, as the comic above illustrated, it’s not so easy. Saving a million, a billion, people is a lot harder than saving 50, it’s almost impossible. Being the best in a field is rare when there your field consists of tens or hundreds of thousands, rather than a handful. Yet we still try, we’ve even made an ideology of it, to our own ruin.

Look at the consequences of when everybody tries to do big things: Young people waste years and huge dollars in college to “pursue their passions”, men turn from family and productive work out of frustration of ‘not accomplishing anything’ or in hopes of pursuing ‘greater things’, men think of themselves as losers for doing honest work and raising a family, women turn against family formation to pursue “accomplishment” and become miserable and childless working to achieve that coveted high-impact job, people get parasitical jobs in the ‘non-profit’ sector, billions are wasted on ineffective foreign aid, wasteful status competitions ensue over who is the best or the most impactful, short-term missions waste valuable resources, ineffective Twitter campaigns provide an illusion of dogoodery, etc.

This is the wife of the “leader of the free world” who controls the strongest empire in history and a million-man military. If the most she can do is a selfie, how will you save “our girls”?

The simple fact is, outside of a handful of exceptional individuals, most people will not be able to have any real impact on the world as a whole, but that is fine. You don’t need to.

The Parable of the Talents

“For it will be like a man going on a journey, who called his servants and entrusted to them his property. To one he gave five talents, to another two, to another one, to each according to his ability. Then he went away. He who had received the five talents went at once and traded with them, and he made five talents more. So also he who had the two talents made two talents more. But he who had received the one talent went and dug in the ground and hid his master’s money. Now after a long time the master of those servants came and settled accounts with them. And he who had received the five talents came forward, bringing five talents more, saying, ‘Master, you delivered to me five talents; here I have made five talents more.’ His master said to him, ‘Well done, good and faithful servant. You have been faithful over a little; I will set you over much. Enter into the joy of your master.’ And he also who had the two talents came forward, saying, ‘Master, you delivered to me two talents; here I have made two talents more.’ His master said to him, ‘Well done, good and faithful servant. You have been faithful over a little; I will set you over much. Enter into the joy of your master.’ He also who had received the one talent came forward, saying, ‘Master, I knew you to be a hard man, reaping where you did not sow, and gathering where you scattered no seed, so I was afraid, and I went and hid your talent in the ground. Here you have what is yours.’ But his master answered him, ‘You wicked and slothful servant! You knew that I reap where I have not sown and gather where I scattered no seed? Then you ought to have invested my money with the bankers, and at my coming I should have received what was my own with interest. So take the talent from him and give it to him who has the ten talents. For to everyone who has will more be given, and he will have an abundance. But from the one who has not, even what he has will be taken away. And cast the worthless servant into the outer darkness. In that place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.’

(Matthew 25:14-30 ESV)

Not everyone has been given ten talents, most people probably haven’t even been given five. Most people have one or two. But you don’t need have ten, you simply have to use what you have to do what you can. The demand is not even for doubling, but just to collect interest. You don’t have to be the best, you don’t have to save the world, you just have to invest what you have to do what you can.

Looking back at the above, what if, instead of trying to save the world through the useless #BringBackOurGirls Twitter campaign, each tweeter had instead donated $10 to their local homeless shelter? what if, instead of wasting tens of thousands so a youth group can feel good about themselves, the money was given to an actual missionary or directly to local Christian missions? What if instead of pursuing their passions, their greatness, their high status job, their large house, etc. men and women were content to raise work a modest job, raise a family, and engage with their community? What if instead of protests for foreign aid, people spent that time volunteering in their local community?

Wouldn’t that be better? Wouldn’t that actually be far more useful? Wouldn’t people be happier?

The problem is, too many people try to think globally and act globally, too many people spend too much time on issues which they can’t effect, while they ignore the people and issues near them which they can effect. Remember who your neighbour is:

But he, desiring to justify himself, said to Jesus, “And who is my neighbor?” Jesus replied, “A man was going down from Jerusalem to Jericho, and he fell among robbers, who stripped him and beat him and departed, leaving him half dead. Now by chance a priest was going down that road, and when he saw him he passed by on the other side. So likewise a Levite, when he came to the place and saw him, passed by on the other side. But a Samaritan, as he journeyed, came to where he was, and when he saw him, he had compassion. He went to him and bound up his wounds, pouring on oil and wine. Then he set him on his own animal and brought him to an inn and took care of him. And the next day he took out two denarii and gave them to the innkeeper, saying, ‘Take care of him, and whatever more you spend, I will repay you when I come back.’ Which of these three, do you think, proved to be a neighbor to the man who fell among the robbers?” He said, “The one who showed him mercy.” And Jesus said to him, “You go, and do likewise.”
(Luke 10:29-37 ESV)

While usually this is interpreted to mean: your neighbour is the person who needs help whoever it is, there’s also the other way to interpret it: the neighbour is the person who’s there needing help. The Good Samaritan did not travel to Sudan for missions, he did not start a charity to help robbed, he didn’t run a political campaign to make safer streets, he did not send $100 to Tibet to help the mugged, all he did was stumble across the guy at the side of the road and help him out. Even Jesus does not demand more from everybody. Some have special callings, most don’t, your calling is probably just to help the guy at the side of the road. All that is demanded of you is to help those around you.

Finally, great men are not solitary. Alexander the Great was only great because of the support of thousands of men. Genghis Khan conquered Asia with the help of a nameless horde. Jesus’ words spread because of 72 unnamed disciples. Every missionary requires monetary support, every general requires troops, every titan of industry requires workers. Great men are great because they’re leading and supported by many more average men. In our modern hyper-competitive society, a lot of people shit on those average men, but they’re the ones who get shit done. Being that average man supporting the great men is valuable in its own right.

You don’t have to be special, it’s impossible for everyone to be. You don’t have to save the world, you can’t. Some people are called to do great things, most aren’t. You can do average things and still have a meaningful, impactful life. You don’t have to save the world, be the best, or become a super alpha male, instead, focus on something meaningful you can do and do what you can where you are.

Then the King will say to those on his right, ‘Come, you who are blessed by my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world. For I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me drink, I was a stranger and you welcomed me, I was naked and you clothed me, I was sick and you visited me, I was in prison and you came to me.’ Then the righteous will answer him, saying, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you drink? And when did we see you a stranger and welcome you, or naked and clothe you? And when did we see you sick or in prison and visit you?’ And the King will answer them, ‘Truly, I say to you, as you did it to one of the least of these my brothers, you did it to me.’
(Matthew 25:34-40 ESV)


You’ve probably seen that Salon has put out a pro-pedophile article. You might have seen #cuckservative Charles CW Cooke defending Salon at NRO. (Interesting, that the #cuckservatives are less condemning of leftists mainstreaming pedophiles, than of viral, cultist Trumpkins). Two years makes for a lot of change on this issue at NRO, although, at least Goldberg is not (yet) cucked enough to jump on this particular bandwagon, although he is cucked enough to think “Salon made a mistake running that piece” rather than knowing that this is intentional. It is “not, to [his] mind, commendable” to promote pedophilia, but normalizing pedophilia is not enough to fight a war to break-up conservatism, unlike backing Trump.

Anyway, #cuckservatives and Trump are not the purpose of this post, so I’ll hold off. You may remember I wrote on pedophilia a couple of times about a year ago when the NYT and TIL wrote their normalization articles. As I said there, I’m not unsympathetic to those struggling with pedophilic tendencies, sometimes people just get dealt a shit hand in life and no temptation exists that is not common to man, including this one, which about 20% of men are afflicted with to some degree.

So, am I a hypocrite? What’s the difference between what I wrote and what Salon wrote? Although, Cooke doesn’t get it, Goldberg almost seems to get it, so I’ll explain.

The difference is normalization. As Goldberg said, pedophilia is currently taboo, and for good reason, sex with children is an unnatural and wrong act. Breaking down that taboo, normalization, is dangerous.

Taboos (or their violation) can really only be discussed without blanket condemnation privately with trusted people, through humour, or through disinterested analytical conversation with the occasional caveat of ‘I’m against this, but to play devil’s advocate…’. As an example, racism is the greatest taboo in today’s religiously egalitarian society, and nigger is the ultimate profane word. Hence, racism can only be discussed in polite company if one is lamenting how horrible it is and nigger can only be used in trusted conversation or by comedians (although, even that is often not safe anymore) by anyone other than blacks themselves.

Pedophilia is currently taboo, as homosexuality was only a few decades ago. (Side note: although, the media will ignore or paper over it, the original platform of the gay rights movement included the end of age of consent. The homosexual movement’s acceptance of NAMBLA continued until they were purged in the 8090’s). You can’t discuss it outside dark humour or academia without expressing disgust.

Any public discussion of pedophilia needs to be unabashedly denounce it as evil. It can be sympathetic, but it can not be accepting, it must condemnatory. If someone is struggling with pedophilia, the proper place to talk about without condemnation is privately with a close friend, priest, psychiatrist, or an anonymous support board on the internet. Any public discussion of the issue should make it clear that talking about this publicly is not allowed. It is taboo.

Just as you currently can make racist jokes with your drunk uncle, but can’t say them to your coworker; you can tell your friend that you struggle with pedophilia, but you can’t tell the public that children make you hard.

What Cooke fails to get is that the Salon article is not reinforcing the taboo, it is destroying it. It is actively giving a clinical pedophile a stage to say “be understanding and supportive… Treat us like people with a massive handicap we must overcome, not as a monster.” But he is a monster. As I wrote, someone who wants to have sex with kids is broken on a fundamental level. Treating pedophilia as a handicap rather than innate evil proclivity, is removing the stigma from it, it is breaking down the taboo.

Once the taboo is gone, acceptable public discourse will move from “he’s not evil, just troubled, be understanding” to “he’s not evil, he was born that way, be accepting” to “he was born that way, don’t judge him for his sexual orientation” to “it’s only natural to act on your sexual orientation” to “pedophobe”. And unlike Goldberg’s assertion this is a mistake, Salon know exactly what it is doing. This is planned.

You can publicly discuss pedophilia and those suffering that temptation sympathetically, even compassionately, without normalizing it, by making sure a public statement is condemnatory of that evil. Non-judgmentalism is for private conversations.

The left is enacting the Gramscian long march with the ultimate goal of destroying the family, which is the strongest bulwark against the state, so that the managerial state can replace it. Salon and all these other sites are either knowingly or unknowingly in on this. They are not making a mistake, they are purposefully enacting their ideology. Legalizing pedophilia will be another blow against the family and for the state, and this is what they want.

If we don’t crush this now, in a few decades, you will be denounced as a pedophobe for objecting to a 40-year-old man fucking your 9-year-old daughter or sodomizing you 6-year-old son. Then the leftists will start in on normalizing the final sexual taboo: rape.


Post-Script: Contra Cooke’s proclamation that “the author seems to be doing exactly what he should be doing given his condition: Namely, a) accepting that he has an unimaginably serious problem, and b) doing his utmost to refrain from acting upon it.”, Todd Nickerson has not shown he should be given the benefit of the doubt. Someone honestly trying to avoid acting on his pedophilic proclivities would not be making “little girl friends” then bragging about it on the internet. Someone honestly trying to help themselves, would be actively avoiding being alone with unrelated little girls.

Guest Post – A Tribute to Russell Moore

Today we have a guest post regarding this article from Russell Moore from a John Doe:

This month the Christians everywhere reel over the Supreme Court ruling on same-sex “marriage.” At the same time, one of the issues hurting many is the excessive celebration performed by President Obama even in the aftermath of this perverted approval of sodomy. This raises the question of what we as Christians ought to think about the American Flag, given the fact that many of us are from the United States.

The flag of my home country will now forever be associated with state approval of tax-exempt orgies, and I’m deeply conflicted about that. The flag represents home for me. I love Christ, church, and family more than America, but that’s about it. Even so, that flag makes me wince—even though I’m the descendant of WWII veterans.

Some would say that the American Flag is simply about heritage, not about sodomy. Many pastors fly the American flag on their property even though they believe that the country is hopelessly irredeemable.

Defenders of the flag would point out that the United States flag has not always been like this. At one point it was, after all, considered the most Christian nation on earth. The difference is, though, that the United States has plummeted into a wicked system of Progressivism (though fortunately late in the game). The United States of America is not simply about limited government and individual liberty; the United States of America is constitutionally committed to the continuation, with protections of law, to a great evil. The moral enormity of the sodomy/baby-killing/divorce/secularism/income-tax-is-theft/let’s-bomb-countries-on-the-other-side-of-the-planet question is one still viscerally felt today, especially by those who grew up in families that were broken by such policies.

The gospel speaks to this. The idea of a human being simply approving of another human being’s degeneracy is abhorrent in a Christian view of morality. That should hardly need to be said these days, though it does, given the modern-day perverted enterprises of gay cocaine orgies all over the world. In the Scriptures, humanity is told to engage in life long monogamous relationships. We are told that it is an abomination for man to lie with man  (Lev. 20:13). The current system of progressivism is built off of things the Scriptures condemn as wicked: sodomy (Rom 1:26-27), giving women authority (1 Tim. 2:12), the breaking up of families, and on and on.

In order to prop up this system, a system that benefited the Progressivism of urban SWPLs, American religion has to carefully weave a counter-biblical theology that could justify it (the biblically ridiculous “hate the sin, love the sinner” concept, for instance). In so doing, this form of American folk religion is outside of the global and historic teachings of the Christian church. The reactionaries were right—and they were right not because they were on the right side of history but because they were on the right side of God.

Even beyond that, though, the Flag has taken on yet another contextual meaning in the years since. The American Flag is the emblem of Marxist defiance to Western Civilization, of the elitist opposition to White existence, and of the Zionist terrorism of Israel and the Globalists of our all too recent, all too awful history.

White Christians ought to think about what that flag says to our children, especially considering that most of them will be brainwashed in government run schools. The gospel frees us from scrapping for our “heritage” at the expense of others. As those in Christ, this descendant of American veterans has more in common with a Nigerian Christian than I do with some New York atheist who knows how to signal his liberalism.

None of us is free from a sketchy background, and none of our backgrounds is wholly evil. The blood of Jesus has ransomed us all “from the futile ways inherited from your forefathers” (1 Pet. 1:18), whether your forefathers were Communists, Americans, Vikings, or whatever. We can give gratitude for where we’ve come from, without perpetuating symbols or pretend egalitarianism with others.

The Apostle Paul says that we should not prize our freedom to the point of destroying those for whom Christ died. We should instead “pursue what makes for peace and for mutual upbuilding” (Rom. 14:19). The American Flag may mean many things, but with those things it represents defiance against common sense and against natural order. The symbol was used to abort the little brothers and sisters of Jesus, to bomb little kids in Vietnam, Germany, Japan, Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, and Atlanta, to terrorize Eastern Orthodox preachers of the gospel and their families by threatening to vaporize their churches with nuclear weapons.

That sort of symbolism is out of step with the justice of Jesus Christ. The cross and the American flag cannot co-exist without one vaporizing the other. White Christians, let’s listen to our common sense. Let’s care not just about our own history, but also about our future. In Christ, we were slaves in Egypt—and as part of the Body of Christ we are all slaves too in the United States. Let’s watch our hearts, pray for wisdom, work for justice, love our neighbors. Let’s take down that flag.

No One Will Help You

Going around is the story of a Democratic activist who encountered diversity on the subway and was culturally enriched with a folding knife. The Federalist goes on some kind of shaming rant of the beta males who watched his encounter with vibrancy, but this is misguided. The better question is why would we expect anyone to help?

The freedom of self-defence has been under full-court attack, particularly by the progressive types of whom Sutherland was a part. If you read his blog and look at the voting record of the man he interned with, Sutherland was in favour of removing people’s ability to protect themselves and others. Why would anyone protect a man who not only is unwilling to protect himself but is dedicated to preventing others from protecting themselves?

Beyond the why, is the how. Contrary to what you see in the movies, fighting off a knife attack is very difficult if you’re unarmed and don’t have training. Davidson has no clue what he’s talking about when he says, “Any two adult men in that subway car could have stopped him, no matter how crazy or strong he was.” Thanks to Democrats like Sutherland, DC has very restrictive concealed carry laws and bans open carry, among other restrictive gun laws.

The only effective means of stopping stopping a knife attacker is practically illegal in Washington, so how exactly was someone supposed to intervene?

Further, the progressive types of Sutherland was a part have been actively trying to remove the ability to prevent these types of attacks from police. Look at what Jim Himes, the Democrat for whom Sutherland interned, has to say on the issue of Ferguson and policing black crime:

One indisputable fact in the United States of America today, and there’s no argument about this, is that the judicial system, from stop and frisk to who gets arrested to what crimes they get charged with to how long they get sentenced to all the way to the application of the death penalty is dramatically discriminatory against our African American population, There’s no argument about that. National data shows that if you’re an 18-year-old African American man arrested with marijuana in your pocket versus a white 18-year-old with marijuana in your pocket you’re treated totally different by the judicial system. The African American community in Ferguson knew that.

Well, we can see what supporting that opinion got Sutherland. Did you know that Jasper Spires may have been high on synthetic marijuana and had been arrested for felony robbery a week earlier, but was released only the Friday before the stabbing? Sometimes, you have to learn the hard way that ideas have consequences; sadly, Sutherland learned the hardest way.

Finally, why would anybody want to intervene to stop a black criminal from violence. Why would anybody volunteer to be the next George Zimmerman? Who wants to be the next Darren Wilson? Why would someone want to have risk having their life destroyed to protect some random stranger?

Did you know that Jim Himes, the person Himes interned for, attended an “I am Trayvon Martin” rally back in 2012?

It seems the demonization of those who protect their neighbours and themselves didn’t turn out too well for Sutherland.

Now, none of this is an accident. There has been a campaign (intentional or not) to get you to stop helping your neighbours so that the atomization of society can continue. As a Democratic operative, Sutherland was on the front lines of this campaign. It’s too bad the atomization worked against him when the time came.

We can’t atomize society and attack those who help others then expect others to help when people are in need. Jesus might help, but we’re not Jesus. A person might help family and friends, but strangers? Probably not. Why would anybody help a random stranger when helping is impossible and will lead to a lynch mob?

Congratulations, you won. No one will help you.

Safe, Affordable Housing

Sailer has pointed out that the federal government is trying to use housing vouchers to get poor people out of public housing and bad neighbourhoods and into good neighbourhoods in the suburbs.

This will fail.

I will state what should be obvious, but nobody ever seems to state:

Neighbourhoods aren’t dangerous, neighbourhoods don’t murder people. Building aren’t dangerous, buildings don’t rob people. Homes aren’t dangerous, homes don’t rape people. Look at this picture of the infamous Cabrini Greens:

How many people did those buildings murder? How many drugs did they sell? How many people did they rob? None, because the Cabrini Greens buildings didn’t move, they were inanimate objects.

However convenient a shorthand it might be, neighbourhoods aren’t dangerous, the people in them are. Housing isn’t safe, the people in them make a safe environment.

It is the people in the neighbourhood who make it safe or make it dangerous.


With that bit of self-evident obvioussness out of the way, it is easy to see why this will fail. When you start moving people to new neighbourhoods, the people stay the same. Because the people make a neighbourhood good or bad, the people moving from a bad neighbourhood will make the new neighbourhood the same as their old one (over time).

You can not use vouchers to make safe neighbourhoods, because the kinds of people who use vouchers are the kinds of people who make neighbourhoods unsafe. The poor, the unemployed, the shiftless, the criminals, the single mothers, the addicted, the drunk, the high time orientated, etc. are the types who receive vouchers, they are also the types who make neighbourhoods unsafe.

Safe, affordable housing is an impossibility, because as soon as you make housing affordable, the type of people who make neighbourhoods unsafe move in. These unsafe people then cleanse the neighbourhood of safe people and the neighbourhood turns becomes just like the ones the people were trying to escape.


There are two possible exceptions.

The first is discrimination. A neighbourhood can remain safe and affordable if the neighbourhood is allowed to discriminate to keep the safe poor (college students, young married families, large traditional families, struggling entrepreneurs, etc) while keeping the unsafe poor out. The safe poor though, are likely not going to be on vouchers. Vouchers select for the unsafe poor. As well, discrimination is evil, so it can’t be allowed no matter how much it would improve the lives of the safe poor.

The second is dispersal and selection. You could select desirable candidates on an individual basis from the unsafe poor to give vouchers and then then disperse them, no more than one family per a block, in safe neighbourhoods. If the selected individual is not naturally an unsafe person, they could fit into the neighbourhood and be uplifted by it, while not adversely effecting the neighbourhood.

But it’s risky. If the selected family turns out not to be a safe one or if their progeny regresses to the mean, they could start causing trouble, starting a downward spiral that drives safe people out, lowers home prices, and brings unsafe people, turning the neighbourhood into an unsafe one. As well, if the voucher families are not dispersed enough, they could come into contact and feed into each others’ weaknesses and start the downward spiral, even if one family alone might not.

But either way, the second method is, of course, is not going to happen. To select safe individuals and not select unsafe individuals is discrimination and discrimination is evil.

Cultural Evolution Response

Scott has a post where he fails to see the dangers of gay marriage to cultural evolution:

First, he distinguishes between two types of cultural evolution and concludes:

Consider: one Inuit tries the red berries and discovers they make her sick. Out of pure self-interest, she decides not to eat them again, and tells her friends the same. Also out of self-interest, they decide not to eat them; those who think they can get away with eating them anyway are quickly disabused of the notion. The taboo against eating red berries quickly spreads throughout the culture.

Marriage doesn’t seem to work that way. If one person decides not to marry in the usual way, it doesn’t necessarily hurt that person. They might have lots of affairs, and enjoy them. Or they might get gay married, and enjoy that.

Here he misses the obvious: STD’s.

About 1.2 million Americans have HIV; about 658,000 have died.

On gays specifically, one-fifth have it.”Although MSM represent about 4% of the male population in the United States, in 2010, MSM accounted for 78% of new HIV infections among males and 63% of all new infections. MSM accounted for 54% of all people living with HIV infection in 2011, the most recent year these data are available… Since the epidemic began, an estimated 311,087 MSM with an AIDS diagnosis have died, including an estimated 5,380 in 2012.”

About 1.8% of men identify as gay, which would mean that about 2,725,200 men in the US are gay. Over about thirty years, over a tenth of the homosexual population has died of AIDS. Most of that was front-loaded in the 80’s; currently there’s a yearly mortality rate of about 2 in 1000. The only reason this isn’t massively worse is because scientists developed drugs to combat the disease.

The yearly death rate in 1995 before the drugs was about 17 in a 1000. (Assuming gays still accounted for 54% of cases and were 1.8% of the population). By comparison, the death rate due to OD by cocaine addicts is about 4 in a 1000, while the death rate of smokers due to smoking-related disease is about 11 in a 1000. That’s not even including other STD’s, which are also not as deadly/disfiguring as they used to be thanks to modern medicine.

Homosexuality is a huge health risk kept mostly in check by modern medicine.

Not to mention that Scott ignores reproduction entirely.

But beyond that, we can go to the second type, the group selection form of cultural evolution.

So I interpret it as a different claim: a culture that allows gay marriage will, for various reasons, become weak and unsuccessful. Then it will be crushed by other cultures, either militarily, economically, or in a sort of marketplace of ideas where people convert to or assimilate into the other culture because it’s more attractive and successful.

Note that THIS IS REALLY DIFFERENT FROM THE FIRST TYPE OF CULTURAL EVOLUTION. In fact, it might be diametrically opposite. For example, gay sex may be lots of fun – and as people figure this out and tell their friends, it will be positively selected through the first type of cultural evolution. But it might weaken a culture’s Moral Fabric – in which case it will be negatively selected through the second type of cultural evolution.

There is no distinction between the two, which is obvious when he talks here:

How long is a “generation” in cultural evolution? Rome lasted a thousand years, Byzantium another thousand. It took about three hundred years for Christianity to replace paganism in Rome; Enlightenment values have been replacing Christianity for three hundred years already and aren’t nearly done. Any sort of evolutionary process that involves waiting for Rome to fall is a process that will take way longer than human history to come to any sort of conclusion… Communism, which basically took all of the worst ideas in history, combined them together into a package deal, and said “Let’s do all of these at once”, took almost a century to collapse, and still hasn’t collapsed in a couple of places.

These were not static societies; they went through numerous dynasties, governments, wars, coups, splits, expansions, and so on. Cultural evolution never stopped: his ‘generation’ had uncounted evolutions. These civilizations adapt to outside pressures. failure to adapt leads to doom, but having a failing policy then fixing it internally can stop doom before it occurs.

For an example, take Rome in the Punic Wars. They were at a disadvantage because they had no fleet when they started. They adapted by creating a fleet, then eventually won. Had they not created a fleet, it may have been Carthage destroying Rome.

Cultural adaptation is different than genetic adaptation and can not be calculated the same way. Genetic adaptation necessarily happens one generation at a time because genetics can only be transmitted by procreation. Cultural adaptation does not as it is not bound by procreation; there are no generations.

(Not to mention that ‘coming to a conclusion’ would put Scott’s generation as the equivalent of an extinction. How long did it take for the Dodo’s to ‘come to a conclusion?’ As well there is survival bias. Scott is only looking at the major, successful, civilizations.  What of all those city-states Rome conquered or destroyed? Rome was the one that survived; the life of the conquered was probably shorter. But these are tangential to the real error).

Finally, he acknowledges a third type:

Actually, this leaves out a possible third kind of cultural evolution, where cultures try good ideas, learn to like them, and stick with them; or try bad ideas, learn to hate them, and stop… Likewise, there’s a cultural evolution argument that we tried traditional sexuality, that made a lot of people unhappy, and now we’re trying something else. It’s unclear how this is different from the Maoism example in a way that makes jettisoning Maoism good, but jettisoning traditional sexuality bad.

The difference is traditional sexuality is not an idea being tried. Traditional sexuality is (in some form) how every civilization that has been successful has made itself and how our civilization has been for millennia. Traditional society is a healthy dog; Maoism is the bright idea to chop off 2 of its legs and see what happens; gay marriage is removing of one of its testicles and seeing how that works out. The latter might no be as immediately debilitating, but if his other testicle is already gone, he won’t be reproducing.


For a taste of gay marriage cultural changes, just look at all the effects of other similar evolutions (divorce, acceptable fornication, etc). High bastardry rates, plummeting marriage rates, and a plummeting birth rate. We’ve gotten to the point where simply to keep things running because we’re not having enough children, we import foreigners with different cultures to work for us; foreigners who are gradually replacing us.

That’s cultural evolution in action. White Americans have adopted policies that have made them evolutionary dead ends and will soon be replaced in their own country, after adopting the other peoples’ cultures through multiculturalism.

Scott put another post up with some responses after I had written this one. It doesn’t address the issues I raise. Also, I know I still have to respond to Scott from about a year back. I have the post half-written, I just never quite finish it.