Category Archives: Uncategorized

Follow-up on “The Myth of the Good Slaveowner”

After reading The myth of the good slaveholder, I’m left wondering why on earth didn’t the white men just pick their own cotton. Or develop machinery to do it….like the cotton gin.

As we all know, after the cotton gin was developed, strongly reducing the need for slave labour, demand for slaves collapsed as poor white men were now chosen to do the work… NOT.

From Wikipedia:

The invention of the cotton gin caused massive growth in the production of cotton in the United States, concentrated mostly in the South. Cotton production expanded from 750,000 bales in 1830 to 2.85 million bales in 1850. As a result, the region became even more dependent on plantations and slavery, with plantation agriculture becoming the largest sector of its economy.[22] While it took a single slave about ten hours to separate a single pound of fiber from the seeds, a team of two or three slaves using a cotton gin could produce around fifty pounds of cotton in just one day.[23] The number of slaves rose in concert with the increase in cotton production, increasing from around 700,000 in 1790 to around 3.2 million in 1850.[24] By 1860, black slave labor from the American South was providing two-thirds of the world’s supply of cotton, and up to 80% of the crucial British market.[25] The cotton gin thus “transformed cotton as a crop and the American South into the globe’s first agricultural powerhouse”.[26]

White Americans just refused to pick their own cotton. They also point-blank refused to bring in poor white Englishmen, Irish, Poles, Russians, or any other immigrants to do the work. Only more poor black slaves from Africa would do the trick, for some mysterious reason.

“Sow the wind, reap the whirlwind.”

Now from the article The myth of the good slaveholder, we get this:

While McDonogh may have been a relative improvement over his peers, he was hardly laudable. He was not freeing his slaves so much for their benefit, or out of principle, unless that principle is the same racism that the rest of the South (and indeed much of the country) shared. He stated his true opinion:

[W]ithout separation of the races, extermination of one or the other must inevitably take place. The two races can never inhabit together in a state of equality in the same country. They may for a short time, even in the capacity of master and slave; as equals and brethren, never.

Well, extermination is off the table… but no nation lasts forever. Then again, I have little interest in continent-spanning liberal secularist empires.

I am reasonably sure that, at the end of the story of the United States, there will be white-dominant nations, and black-dominant nations: but the winners are going to be Christian-dominant nations, where the Mosaic principle of One Law for All is applied. Not genetics, but ethics, will separate winners from losers after the fall of the Empire.

Like Lincoln, too, McDonogh was a strong supporter of the ill-fated but powerfully deceptive American Colonization Society (ACS), which raised tons of money to end slavery gradually, but only on the condition that all freed slaves be shipped back to Africa. Since anti-black sentiment was so pervasive and so strong in both North and South, this was widely seen as the most viable alternative for ending the blight of slavery.

But it was also highly expensive and therefore ineffective. Some savvy slaveowners soon saw it as a means to unload their aged and infirm slaves, or more rebellious, troublesome subjects at government/society expense. Thus, it freed such slaveowners of the burden of paying for unproductive or retired slaves, and freed capital for owners to buy younger more productive ones. Thus, the ACS indirectly only subsidized slavery.

Racism is cheap, but expulsion is expensive.

Perhaps in due time, the white American racists would decide that bullets and poison gas is cheaper than expulsion, just as the white European racists decided. I am confident that if you put good money on the bet that the genocides will shout to the heavens about how kind and civilized and Christian they are, you would make a  bundle.

(And if they dumped the Christianity, took up Marxism, and called upon some useful quotes from Marx and Darwin, they would have tons of academic defenders to this very day.)

To continue the article:

Among the most important lessons is the correction of the commenter’s suggestion that McDonogh is one of “many cases” that dispute my view. Not only do we have to scrape the history books in order just to find one McDonogh, the fact that very few whites even attended this most wealthy and famous of plantation owners’ funeral attests to how popular his example really was. (Hint: it wasn’t.)

If this image alone does not persuade you, be aware that there is scant evidence at all of southern slaveowners who either bought slaves out of altruistic motives or who freed them under such plans. Even the self-interested and compromised form of McDonough is a rare outlier of extraordinary means and execution.1

And when you hold up the tiny handful of McDonoghs in the records against the superabundance of evidence that demonstrates widespread rape, torture, murder, and abuse of slaves which not only occurred but was protected or overtly sanctioned by law, in the thousands of cases, you can see what a pitiful objection it really amounts to.

Far from proving that my omissions portray the case worse than it was, the rarity of a John McDonogh, and the regrettable nature of even his case, rather prove the thesis of my book and my approach to this topic to be all the stronger and more solidly confirmed.

And there you go.

And afterwards? After the bankruptcy and (thanks to identity politics and the fall of White America into permanent minority status) the eventual breakup of the United States, various new tales will be written. It is unlikely that there will ever be again a unifying ethnic group with the US, or a single national narrative.

I’m a Christian Postmillenialist, so I’m sure there will be a single religious story for all humanity: but Christ is King, and the Kingdom of God favours numerous small competing nations in the political world, not one single empire – or even a few large empires.

God does not care for Empire, and it’s generally unwise to put must faith or money on such things.

The European Supremacy is over, as much from abortion and a collapsed birth rate and perversions both financial and sexual, as for costly, self-destructive wars and a longing for the care and protection of the State (as opposed to the care and protection of God.)

Sure, some will repent of their sin, and live to shape the future… but most won’t, preferring to die in their defiance of God and His standards. Much like their European brothers, facing their Arabic and African future.

(Black Americans could inherit the US… but won’t, preferring to leave their children in ignorance, and seeking only to be more dependent on their new, pointedly atheistic, yet solidly collectivist Democratic masters. So the baton goes to the Hispanics instead.

*shrug*

Tear down Confederate statues if you must – I have no problem with that – but better yet to abandon the inner-city school system and drug emporium, teach your kids at home, and get off the welfare payroll.)

 

Advertisements

Establishment Babble About Bible Museums

From Creation-Evolution Headlines, we get

Museum of the Bible Opens: Biased Reporters Find Fault

A major new museum in Washington DC showcases the Bible as never before, but some secular reporters can only nitpick.

On Friday, the end of the 76th annual National Bible Week, a privately-funded, $500 million museum opened just 3 blocks from the national mall in Washington DC: the Museum of the Bible. With 8 floors of exhibits, it is the most technologically advanced private museum in the city.

[…]

Inviting people to “consider” what the Bible says is not the same as pushing religion on them, since people can freely choose to visit the museum or not. But the fact that the Green family is Christian and wished to have people “consider” the Bible was enough to send secular reporters into attack mode. They accuse the Green family of having an agenda, even though the museum is a non-profit with its own director and staff, and is open to all faiths.

Consequently, certain reporters, rather than having anything nice to say about the museum, are looking for ways to find fault. For instance, Michael Greshko at National Geographic arouses a hint of dishonest dealings with his bold headline, “Forgeries May Hide in Museum of the Bible’s Dead Sea Scrolls.” Greshko knows, as all antiquities dealers know, that it is difficult sometimes to establish the provenance of certain artifacts. “At the time of these purchases,” his article admits, “…the post-2002 fragments were largely considered authentic,” indicating that the the Green family’s purchasers acted in good faith. Suspicions came only later for a couple of scroll fragments. The reader only learns this below the fold, seeing that the museum staff have performed (and continue to perform) due diligence to certify each element in the displays. Most of the scrolls are unquestioned; those that are facsimiles, like the priceless Isaiah scroll displayed in Israel, are clearly indicated. It should be noted that the Dead Sea Scrolls exhibit occupies just one small portion of a huge museum occupying eight floors. Could Greshko not comment on any of the other sections, and the excellence of the exhibits? His article seems like a deliberate exercise in nitpicking.

Properly programmed Establishment Shills can’t help themselves: the point, as always, is the party line, not some mythical, religious vision of Truth.

As for The Economist — ‘the Voice of Power in Today’s World’ — we get this:

That did nothing to reassure those who worried that a privately-funded $500m Bible museum only three blocks from Capitol Hill would seek to press conservative evangelicals’ already-huge influence unduly. Nor did the institution’s original mission statement, which was to “inspire confidence in the absolute authority of the Bible.”

After 50 years of abject, laughable failure – or is it 150 years? – believing Christians do something other than re-elect Republicans with their pretty promises, and it’s “undue influence”.

You know what I think?

I think that Christians should get serious about working hard, mastering both business, science, technology and media (as their skills and talents direct them). Get into a winner’s mindset, demand and deliver excellence, and get the results God expects, in time and on earth.

And with the rewards God provides for serious obedience — in wealth, responsibility and authority — expand the Kingdom of God right through each and every secular stronghold, regardless if it’s the media, business, science, or politics.

University or court, homeschool or corporation, God expects His people to rise and rule, filled with the Holy Spirit…

…regardless of the cries of ‘undue influence’, bu those who despise you, and would much prefer that you and yours have no influence, at any time, anywhere, ever.

God is a God of the Living, not the dead. Let’s live, and grow in perfection and holiness… and let His enemies dissolve in meaninglessness, sterility, and irrelevant babble.


P.S.: Regarding perfection, Rushdoony’s commentaries on the subject in the Institutes of Biblical Law are well worth your time. You can read it for free on www.scribd.com, or buy your own copy…

The Tithe, The Presence of God, and the Priesthood of All Believers

To whom should we give the tithe?

We should give to those who manifest the Presence of God.

If they – church or cause or man – does not show the signs of having the Presence of God, of upholding His will, then they are to be dumped. Not a dime of the money God entrusted to you should be willingly donated to the cause of His enemies, regardless of their position or their cross-waving or their traditional rights and privileges.

Taxes, of course, belong to Caesar. But give to God the things that belong to God, including your heart and soul, life and love, obedience and fear.

The key phrase to spot below:

  • The Presence of God;
  • The Priesthood of All Believers;
  • The Right and Duty of Private Judgement

Memorize them, know them, inscribe them onto your heart.


From Bojidar Marinov’s Tithing, Responsibility, and the Presence

The resistance against the Reformation was initially not against Luther’s theology – in fact, quite a few Roman theologians were willing to acknowledge the basic points of his theology as valid. The argument was against his claim that the Pope and his cardinals and archbishops should be subject to the same rules for accountability and judgment as the ordinary believers. That’s why the real controversy of the Reformation was not the doctrine of Scripture, nor the doctrine of predestination vs. free will, nor even the doctrine of salvation by works or by faith, but Luther’s doctrine of the priesthood of all believers, and, even more than that, what followed from it: the doctrine of the right and duty of private judgment. Yes, the same doctrine of the right and duty of private judgment which today is forgotten and never even mentioned in any Reformed or evangelical church throughout the United States. The doctrine that gave the spark of the Reformation has ZERO sermons devoted to it on SermonAudio today, and the vast majority of “Reformed” or “evangelical” church-goers have never even heard of it, and certainly not from their pastors or elders or seminary professors. For all practical purposes, what passes for “Protestant” or “evangelical” today has returned to Roman Catholicism.

Under this papist ecclesiology restored in the churches that claim to be “Protestant” or “evangelical,” accountability is only applied to ordinary members but not to church leadership. Obviously, if ordinary members are not priests (if their priesthood is not reaffirmed in the church’s theology) and if their right and duty of private judgment is not established and affirmed (because it is forgotten and not preached about at all), there is no theological principle that can keep the elders or the session accountable for anything they do. Except, of course, to themselves, which is no different than the practice of modern police department to “investigate themselves” and, of course, clear themselves of any wrongdoing, even when cops commit obvious crimes like murder of robbery.

[…]

This context and background – of true Biblical responsibility and accountability – is the only legitimate context and background for any discussion on the tithe. Without first laying the foundation of true Biblical relationships of mutual judgment and accountability – including between members of the church and ministers of the church – we can’t really talk about the tithe. Without such background, the tithe becomes nothing more than extortion money; a fee levied on the ordinary believer to acknowledge him as part of the visible church. A refusal to pay the fee makes him officially un-admitted into the church. Again, not that the tithe itself is unlawful or un-Biblical; but the context in which it is paid – one-way responsibility between the ordinary members and the church leadership, and the total lack of accountability for the leadership – makes the tithe nothing more than theft. Unless we acknowledge this ethical/judicial reality of any relationship between church members and church ministers – not just the tithe – we are doomed to create nothing more than the same papist bureaucracy as Rome. And indeed, the vast majority of the so called “local churches” in the US are nothing more than local popedoms. This last week was 500 years of the beginning of the Reformation; and yet, looking at the churchian landscape in America today, one can hardly see anything else but Rome replicated 300,000 times.

Given that ethical/judicial context of two-way responsibility between men and their institutions, then, what is the Biblical way for us to think about the tithe? Keep in mind that while the Bible does speak about the tithe, and while it can be safely concluded from the little it says about it that every believer owes God a tithe, and that means not just given directly to God but to someone else on earth, whether institutions or projects or individual people, there is nothing in the Bible that specifically declares the procedural details of where and how the tithe is supposed to be paid. At least not in the New Testament. There are such specific laws in the Old Testament, but there is also sufficient evidence that these laws are part of the shadows of the Law, and therefore these laws are applicable under the New Covenant under the discretion of general equity at best. Besides, as we will see shortly, even the shadows of the Old Testament admitted of the use of discretion, common sense, and general equity contrary to the specific commandments – and in fact, Jesus approved of such use. To say it simply, there is more to the tithe than just giving it to a group of priests or elders. The group or session of priests or elders have to work hard to deserve it. If they don’t, the obligation of the tither is to re-direct his tithe. In other words, he has an obligation to pay it; but his pastor or elders are not entitled to it by default. Once we understand the Biblical principle that the tithe has to be given only in a setting of two-way responsibility, the theory that the giver is obligated to give, and then it’s on the church ministers what they do with it, is dispelled. The giver must make sure the money he gives goes to the right purposes, otherwise his responsibility is to not give, and to re-direct his money to where it will be used rightly. So, then, what is the principle?

Since the modern defenders of ecclesiocracy defend, in one way or another the principle of one-way responsibility – that is, the church member is obligated to tithe (that’s where the so-called “local church membership” matters the most, not the nonsense of “fellowship,” which is actually lacking in almost all the churches who practice formal “membership”), so, the church member is obligated to tithe but spending the money is left to the discretion of the church leadership – and since these modern defenders of ecclesiocracy point to the Law of God and its commandments to tithe to the levitical system, our best starting point in learning the principle behind tithing is to start from the exceptions to the rule. If there are exceptions to the rule, then it can be only because the principle of tithing is broken somewhere; and if we find out what is broken, we will be able to find the connection between tithing and the ethical/judicial foudnation for the responsibility of the tither.

[…]

In every such example of paying some form of a tithe of making an offering to God, the common element was that the giver sought the presence of God and gave to the place where he saw that presence. The Presence was the factor; while Rushdoony is correct that the giver has the responsibility to decide who deserves the tithe, I think his explanation for the fundamental criteria is inadequate: it’s not where the money will serve the best, it’s where the presence of God is.

But how could a giver decide where the presence of God is? Isn’t he supposed to just accept the word of his ecclesiastical rulers as to where that presence is, as a sign of “submission” to church authorities? Not at all.

In all these cases in the Word, the presence of God was a personal, direct revelation to the giver. Ahimelech the priest knew – from Samuel’s prophecy – that David was God’s beloved. Abraham personally knew Melchizedek was an image of the Son of God. The man from Beth-Shalisha could personally judge that God’s Spirit was with Elisha. Jesus’s disciples had a personal revelation that He was God; “Peter, Peter, flesh and blood did not reveal that to you, but My Father in heaven.” Jacob had a dream and a personal revelation. The presence of God is not determined by institutional arangements. Sometimes He does abide by the institutional arrangements, as long as the leaders of the institution obey His voice – which hasn’t happened too often in history, and is certainly far fom happening today in the so-called “Reformed” or “evangelical” churches. In other times, God is outside the institutions that are officially bearing His name, as He was in the times of the prophets, and in the time of Jesus, and in the time of the Reformation. When God is outside those institutions, it is the responsibility of His worshipers to seek and pray for personal revelation to indicate His presence, and re-direct their tithe accordingly. The tithe is owned to God. Since it is owned to God, it must be paid where God is. If a church or other institution wants that tithe, it must make sure it is obedient to God and therefore has His presence. If not, it doesn’t deserve the tithe, and then it is responsibility of the giver to not give it his tithe, but seek the presence of God.

[…]

The tithe, therefore, must be restored in its true meaning and intent; but more important than that, our discernment of the presence of God needs to be restored before anything else is restored. We in the US have been losing not only the culture but also our children and our churches – which is not bad, given that most of those churches are not worth a dime – and that loss has a spiritual reason for it. The Temple was lost when God’s Glory Cloud, God’s presence. This may be the reason we are losing. And the restoration will start when each one of us prays for, seeks earnestly, and through the Holy Spirit develops that discernment thta will make us capable of saying like Jacob, “I can see that God is in this place.” And then act – and tithe – accordingly.

 

Depopulation… and Repopulation

From Economica:

The world economy is premised on a ludicrous idea.  That Asia, then India, and then Africa will continue to drive economic growth.  So as not to turn this article into a book, lets consider this idea focusing on East Asia consisting of China, Japan, North and South Korea, Taiwan, and minor others.  This region consists of 1.6 billion persons or about 22% of earths inhabitants.  However, since 2008, it is this region that is responsible for nearly all net global increases in demand for oil (best proxy available for true economic growth) and having primarily driven global economic growth.  My point in this article is that the growth in this region is entirely a credit driven supernova against collapsing populations which will never be able to fill the 100+ million newly added apartments or pay back the debt incurred to achieve the “growth”.  Contrarily, from an investor standpoint, this weakness is the green light to “invest” as aggressively as possible because as long as central banks exist, they have your back.

The future belongs to those who have children.

(Pauses to listen to the astonished gasps of Atheistic, pro-abort Darwininans. You know, the heirs of the ‘survival of the fittest’ way of thinking…)

Muslims have children.

Christians are commanded to have children… but often don’t. Or try to restrict and limit the number of children they have, in fear of the economy.

This is a violation of the First Commandment: Obey God, Worship God alone, Fear God alone.

And also the first command God gave to Adam and Eve: be fruitful and multiply.


Christians are better at converting people than Muslims. When they get serious about fully obeying God, in all things — including ‘family planning’ which in obedient families means have as many children as God sends — they will win, handily, and rather quickly too, in about two-three hundred years, 500 at most.

I assume you want a Christ-dominated world, not a Islamic-dominated world, yes?

Forget the Atheistic-dominated non-future: those morality free types, born killers of the born and unborn have also killed off their future. And the more they take atheism seriously, the more drastic and total the population, wealth, and cultural collapse.

Indeed, if you ignore the ruins and the historical record, and just count heads in 2200 (say), it will be as if these  never were.

“In the Harshest Light Possible”

From The end of promissory materialism? What advances has materialism (naturalism) made in the last decade?

Here is a piece I (O’Leary for News) wrote for the first edition of Salvo (2006). Interesting to see how it has held up after more than a decade has past.

– 0 –

About three years ago, I predicted that the intelligent design controversy would explode in a few years, with every instapundit punding away furiously — some thoughtful, some foolish, some merely malign. The latter mood was expressed beautifully by a board member of Kansas Citizens for [promoting materialism in] Science, who summarized her public relations strategy against intelligent design advocates in February 2005 as follows: She advised her troops to portray them “’in the harshest light possible, as political opportunists, evangelical activists, ignoramuses, breakers of rules, unprincipled bullies, etc.”

[Oppo research has its limitations when there is a growing fact base to consider.]

Frame the Narrative, Control the Discussion.

(And it’s all about Control, not Truth, with these people…)

It was not as easy in 2005 as it was in 1985; and it will be even more difficult in 2025 compared in 2005.

And in 2045? After the financial and scientific (as well as the moral and cultural) disgrace of secularism and atheistic materialism become a repulsive thing to all, just as Communism, Nazism, and (increasingly) strict, doctrinate Islamism is?

That will be an interesting day, indeed!

Get ready for that day!

Even better: get more children, and get them ready too!

(Lots of exclamation marks there… but I can’ t help myself. Victory is going to taste so good!

Just be sure to remember from Who’s Hand you received that victory, Christian.

Thank Christ for it, and thank Him in the language He welcomes, by increased excellence in obedience to His Law-Word.

And thus, by obedience to His Law-Word, seeing and following the Light of His Truthful Way, gain even MORE Victories!)

Sheer Assertions

On  The Illusionist, on a particular materialist failure to explain consciousness

In the end, Dennett’s approach has remained largely fixed. Rather than a sequence of careful logical arguments, his method remains, as ever, essentially fabulous: That is, he constructs a grand speculative narrative, comprising a disturbing number of sheer assertions, and an even more disturbing number of missing transitions between episodes. It is often quite a beguiling tale, but its power of persuasion lies in its sprawling relentlessness rather than its cogency. Then again, to be fair, it is at least consistent in its aims. No less than the ancient Aristotelian model of reality, Dennett’s picture is meant to be one in which nature and mind are perfectly congruent with one another, and in which, therefore, the post-Cartesian dilemma need never rear its misshapen head.

Keep an eye on ‘sheer assertions’: you are going to see more and more of those, as the failure of materialism – and the Establishment need to defend it, whatever the cost – grows more and more inescapable.

Also of note, the construction of scenarios and ways of thought to hide and evade certain unpleasant (for materialists) realities.


If you tire of fantasy and want some reality, I suggest the article This Is Your Brain on Intelligent Design for a start.

Passing over the amazing — and obviously non-random — process of forming the brain, we will just touch on the the Question of Consciousness:

Materialists Puzzle Over Consciousness

Three international scientists, writing in Science Magazine, review various meanings of ‘consciousness’ and ask whether robots will ever have it. As evolutionists, they apply the “It evolved” explanation, combined with a high perhapsimaybecouldness index, to account for any puzzle. For instance, “Thus, circuits in the prefrontal cortex may have evolved to monitor the performance of other brain processes.”

The explanation makes no sense from a materialist perspective. Nothing made of atoms is capable of deciding “to monitor the performance of other brain processes.” Such language presupposes the ability to know what information is, and to collect it and measure performance according to some objective standard. What else can the authors do? They are limited by their assumptions to consider only naturalistic explanations.

“What we call ‘consciousness’ results from specific types of information-processing computations, physically realized by the hardware of the brain,” they say in the Conclusion section of the paper. They specifically reject dualism, the view that mind and body are both independently required to explain human behavior. “Although centuries of philosophical dualism have led us to consider consciousness as unreducible to physical interactions, the empirical evidence is compatible with the possibility that consciousness arises from nothing more than specific computations.” But this speculative view undercuts their own reasoning, because no objective standard for truth and logic can emerge from mindless matter in motion.

Most of the essay consists of futureware, speculating about what robots will be able to do some day.

Materialists sure love their futureware…. in two generations or so, as the current Establishment dries up and blows away, it will be all they have.

The Moral Limits of Atheism

From Euthanasia Reveals Atheism’s Moral Confusion

Jerry Coyne has responded to our criticisms (here, here, here and here) of his endorsement of euthanasia for handicapped children. Coyne seems a bit perplexed at the strong criticism he has received for his advocacy for killing babies with birth defects because they would suffer if allowed to live.

For example, he is surprised at the outrage that atheist ethicist Peter Singer has received for advocacy of infant euthanasia:

For these views Singer has been demonized by disability rights advocates, who have called for his firing and disrupted his talks (see my post about that here). All for just raising a reasonable ethical question that should be considered and discussed!

Coyne’s message: Don’t get all worked up about killing handicapped babies, even if you’re one of the class of people he proposes to kill. Can’t we discuss this dispassionately, like adults?

But Coyne’s equanimity has limits.

In 2013, Ball State University professor Eric Hedin taught a course on astronomy that included suggested readings on the possibility that the cosmos manifests evidence of design. Coyne was fit to be tied. He threatened the president of Ball State with legal action:

It’s religion taught as science in a public university, and it’s not only wrong but illegal.  I have tried approaching the University administration, and have been rebuffed. This will now go to the lawyers.

Coyne enlisted the Freedom from Religion Foundation to issue a cease-and-desist letter to Ball State.

[…]

Consider the irony. When Peter Singer endorsed killing handicapped babies in the crib, at a public lecture in front of the very people he advocated killing, Coyne defended his academic freedom and pleaded: Can’t we all just get along?

When a professor raises the question of design in an astronomy class, or a museum puts up a donor’s plaque crediting God for nature, Coyne erupts in rage and calls in the lawyers.

For Coyne, killing babies is a topic for reasoned discussion. Invoking God, or considering scientific evidence of design, is an outrage.

Atheists have always been pretty good at either backing the killing of innocents, or just doing it themselves.

When these people start taking their ideology seriously, watch out!