Thursday, June 22, 2017

SBC Circles Wagons; Culls Alt-Right

Charles Sherrard

With all of the problems facing Western Civilization right now, we should all applaud the bravery of the Southern Baptist Convention (SBC) for focusing on the real menace facing our institutions: the groundswell movement which catapulted Donald Trump into the White House known as the “Alt-Right.”  Yes, the SBC has gone against the grain of the mass media and pop culture for Christ by attacking a loose conglomeration of flag-waving anti-transnationalist Americans who want to build a Nehemiah-like wall, have the audacity to seek to curb the influx of Muslims into their Christian country, and along the way might like to whip a few moneychangers.  Yes, the same SBC that recently elected a non-white President to ensure that fewer White men hold its administrative offices, because as we all know God is for racial quotas in the body of Christ.  Yes, the same SBC that as recent as last year resolved to give unwavering support to the Jewish Nationalists in the Middle East who also recently refused to accept African refugees into their land.
In Christian form, the SBC resolved last Wednesday to curse the Alt-Right for its “white supremacy” as well as “every form of racial and ethnic hatred as a scheme of the devil.” (emphasis added).  Noted theologians at Salon.com appeared jubilant in the progressive achievement.  No effort was made to define what it meant to be Alt-Right or white supremacist, and no individuals presented evidence or cross-examination as to why another group of countrymen should be slurred in such a way, but, after all, it’s [current year] and almost every non-Christian group opposes the undefined Alt-Right as racists, so of course the Resolution passed with thunderous applause.
As a (former) member of the SBC, there is little surprise in the author after hearing the news.  One of the last events I attended was a “Crunk for Christ” rap concert that left me scratching my head.   The SBC has completely lost direction from its founding and one wonders why they haven’t just closed shop and started a new organization without the baggage of its foundation.  On the other hand, I think the writing has been on the walls for years and most simply stay with the SBC because that has been their family’s tradition.  But then one has to wonder still if those congregants condemn their fathers or believe that their salvation was grandfathered in because it wasn’t [current year] when they were worshipping the same God under the same statutes.  I would surmise that these are a lot of the same people who cringe in the pews when they read to the end of Job and realize his daughters were described as “fair.”
Incidentally, and perhaps as the answer to the riddle, the SBC like the Federal Government has a strong-ally-in-the-middle-east which shares many congruent objectives with what the Alt-Right appears to promote: ethno-nationalism.  In fact, the SBC itself resolved that it shares many values with Israel, and had any probing been done on the matter, it may have been discovered that the SBC shares many values with the Alt-Right.  But alas, it was simply assumed that the Alt-Right was against the Word of God and it was therefore resolved that the Alt-Right is “of the devil.”  As such, the Convention cuts out a large swath of souls because it seemed like a good idea at the time.
Granted, there are racists who identify as Alt-Right-ers, but the act of condemning a group that doesn’t have a leader, does not have an official platform, does not have card carrying members, and is basically no more than “an organized movement, mostly online that rejects mainstream conservatism, promotes nationalism and views immigration and multiculturalism as threats to White identity” is simply laughable and illusory.  All SBC has done is used its power to further disenfranchise a group of patriotic and intelligent Americans, some of whom may need love more than anyone else in the country.  Moreover, the Resolution ignores the disconnect between its support for an ethno-nationalist state, namely Israel, and its cursing of Whites who see the demographic challenges and want nothing different than what Israel already does.  The SBC may have even found that other Alt-Right-ers look to the Bible for an understanding of how to properly govern a Nation and simply disagree on some of scripture’s application to our Constitutional Republic, but contemporaneously agree on Acts 17:26, Psalm 24:1, Acts 10:34–35, Galatians 3:27–28, Revelation 5:9, and Revelation 7:9 as cited in the Resolution.  Yet there was no inquiry into this, just a rushed, blanket condemnation of what has proven to be a potent political camp.
Hopefully SBC readers will understand that being in favor of a European ethno-state – or, for that matter, mere city or county – does not mean that one must necessarily be opposed to an Israeli ethno-state; that the two are not mutually exclusive, and it is not exclusive to other kindreds having homogenous territories or incompatible with coexisting amongst other multiethnic-states if other countries so desire. Their great paradox is that, as the Resolution itself correctly cites Revelation 7:9 (After this I beheld, and, lo, a great multitude, which no man could number, of all nations, and kindreds, and people, and tongues, stood before the throne, and before the Lamb, clothed with white robes, and palms in their hands (KJV)) (emphasis added), the group advocating for the retention of a White nation, that is to say, a homogeneous jurisdiction of White Christians, is the “white nationalist” Alt-Right congregants who they have now condemned as heathens.  
Several questions arise: do the proponents of the Resolution believe that there will even be a White nation when Christ returns, or will White men like myself go the way of the Dodo bird? If no, then their objective is apparent, and the follow-up question would of course be whether that is a desirable thing.  If yes, then who shall be the one to stand up for the preservation of the White nation in the face of demographic decline?  And are those Christians then actually just “racists” condemned to hell? Has divine Providence predestined the issues of Job to be hopelessly commingled with other tribes and nations? Will Christ’s 1000 Year Reign even be occupied by Caucasians at all?  Or will the Reverend Al Sharpton XIII organize protests in the White nation once Christ returns for His bride?
If anything, the SBC needs to understand that, if it is really in the business of winning souls, disparaging internet trolls as pawns of the Devil will not be very effective.  If it is actually concerned with these lost little lambs and it wasn’t just political grandstanding by the proponent, perhaps there should have been more deliberation over the Resolution or the proper procedure would have been to table the matter until less inflammatory phrases could be used and finer details could be hammered out like, you know, what does and does not constitute a member of the Alt-Right.  Nope, it was just railroaded through, the Alt-Right be damned – whoever they are.
Allegedly one person dissented in the vote.  Anybody know who?  He should be congratulated for keeping a foothold in the discussion.

RAMZPAUL: Work is bullsh*t.



Gavin provided the basic conservative arguments against welfare. Welfare makes people lazy. People that are on welfare are fat and should get jobs. And so on. He also cited that approximately 20% of the populace is on some type of welfare.

The problem is that his definition of “welfare” is somewhat narrow.  According to the data, 21,995,000 in 2015 were directly employed by the government. Per the chart below, that are almost twice as many people in government as there are in manufacturing. The government is a HUGE jobs provider. And it is the government’s stated goal to give preference to women and “people of color.”




The question is how many of these governments jobs are actually productive?  And in a real sense you could consider these people to be on “welfare.”

But the scope of government welfare jobs also is found in private industry. Many such jobs are directly tied to government contracts. And many private jobs are due to the result of government mandates.


Wednesday, June 21, 2017

Do you support a North Korea travel ban?



There is no doubt that North Korea is a brutal communist dictatorship. The stories of atrocities are legendary. In a UN report concerning the North Korean legal system, the report highlighted a case in which a cleaning woman was sent to a concentration camp for accidently breaking a picture of Dear Leader. In another episode, a man was sent to prison for using a newspaper to clean up a drink spill. It seems the newspaper used to clean the spill had an image of Dear Leader.  And this sort of heresy cannot go unpunished in North Korea.

Based on the legal history of North Korea, it is obvious Otto was not persecuted for being an American. Any North Korean citizen would have received the same fate for stealing a propaganda poster.

However, most Americans who visit North Korea understand the rules and are careful not to run into legal problems. It is estimated that approximately 1,000 American citizens visit North Korea every year. And in the past ten years, only 16 Americans have been detained out of the approximately 10,000 who have visited - less than 1%. Not bad odds.

Travel to such oppressive countries does have some strategic upsides. A prison state runs into long term problems when it allows its citizens have contacts with outsiders. Yes, even when the tourists are carefully monitored, ideas slowly seep out to the populace. Ideas that maybe, just maybe, Americans are not all the evil devils as they have been taught since childhood.


I am a firm supporter of strong borders. But I am also an advocate of tourism and interacting with people of other cultures. While visiting North Korea has some risk, the benefits are worth it.