THE SIXTH WORD
Thou shalt not kill.
Though it typically appears in our English translations as ‘kill,’ most exegetes note the Hebrew as being more approximate to murder, or ‘the unwarranted taking of life.’ But the uniform inexactitude of translation favoring ‘kill’ over ‘murder,’ while lending liberals a shallow excuse for anti-capital punishment rhetoric, does seem to aid in conveyance of other implied categories of negligent harm, such as manslaughter, mentioned elsewhere in biblical case law. Thus question 135 of the Westminster Larger Catechism states:
The duties required of in the sixth commandment are all careful studies, and lawful endeavors, to preserve the life of ourselves and others by resisting all thoughts and purposes, subduing all passions, and avoiding all occasions, temptations, and practices, which tend to the unjust taking away the life of any; by just defence thereof against violence, . . . comforting and succouring the distressed and protecting and defending the innocent.
If the sixth law forbids all things which ‘tend to the unjust taking away the life of any,’ by the clear attestation of history, experience, and Scripture, no single thing endangers innocent life more than the twin forces of imperial government and racial integration. The two appear together so invariably that we may very well say that it is a distinction without a difference. If imperial statism, known in recent times as international socialism, internationalism, or the New World Order, aren’t precisely the same thing as racial integration, they appear inseparable. Democide and genocide are Siamese twins.
But whatever else the UN may be and do, their 1946 resolution on genocide tenders a surprisingly sound definition from the Westminster perspective:
In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:
a. Killing members of the group;
b. Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
c. Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
d. Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
e. Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.
Albeit, this resolution must have been ratified with tongues firmly planted in the collective cheek of the assembly, because the UN in its fundamental aims of international federalism (borderless planetary regime) under ‘human rights‘ marks them, (according to their own definition) among the chief culprits, especially with respect to acts C and D above. For they have certainly brought about these conditions in all European stock nations for the express purpose of ‘diversifying,’ i.e., diluting, overwhelming, supplanting, and/or expunging, the European-stock peoples.
In all places where this agenda has been implemented, it has tendered the same result: establishment of C and D in policy invariably ushers in the overt violence defined in sections A and B: open borders to free-range non-white immigration, ‘equal rights,’ ‘civil rights,’ ‘human rights,’ disallowance of freedoms of association, property, and opinion, bombardment of the populace with anti-White egalitarian propaganda in schools, movies, television, and press, the massive expansion of government and government programs, devaluation of the currency (and savings), and affirmative action in all institutions for all but White males constitute socio-economic circumstances calculated to preclude child-rearing at replacement levels. These conditions invariably result in widespread and ever-escalating violence against our people at the hands of others. Wherever diversity is extolled and integration pursued, our people are being savaged day and night. The ‘peace’ brought to us by racial integration is plummeting standards of living, and levels of violence unknown to us historically outside theaters of war. All the necessary conditions for the perpetuation of our race have been systematically and methodically removed.
Yet our neo-churchmen would have it no other way. In spite of all, they tell us the borders and segregation which so long preserved our Mayberry-esque innocence were by connotation of the great contrast with other races, infinitely greater violence than our present estimated 40,000 black-on-white rapes per annum, mass murder, and the roving bands of Diversity in every city hunting our women, children, and elders. All these present conditions set the trajectory which, if not arrested, spells the global extermination of the White race inside the next century. And as the Japhetic wing of the species is diminished, civilization recedes with us.
In spite of the starkness of these realities, none of it seems to touch the conscience of Alienists. To hear them tell it, our mass-murder is the consummation of ‘peace’ long deferred. Our forced extinction is the Kingdom come.
Yet the catechism, question #136, reiterates forcefully that the sins forbidden in the sixth commandment include “provoking words, oppression, quarreling, striking, wounding, and whatsoever tends to the destruction of the life of any.”
All posturing as Reformational thinkers notwithstanding, any assent to the sixth law amongst Alienists is now entirely divorced from the Westminster perspective, because they hold ‘provoking words’ against our people approximate to the Golden Rule. Our ‘oppression,’ worship. ‘Quarreling’ against our right to exist, the Dominion Mandate. Hordes of invading strangers ‘striking [and] wounding’ our people, the Great Commission. ‘And whatsoever tends to the destruction of the life’ of our children, the sublime good.
Conversely, they see any attempt, or even the slightest entertainment of ‘just defense thereof against violence,’ as the height of blasphemy, and our murderers as saints. And any defense on our part (including the bare acknowledgement of these realities), they have the temerity to call ‘murder’! Worse, they tell us that our motive – the preservation of our people’s lives – only enhances the charge by the magnified force of that most dubious Marxian penological concept – ‘racism.’ Yes, in the eyes of the modern subverted churches of the West, simply noticing our genocide is actually worse than any one act of mass murder: in the minds of Alienists it is approximate only to the sum of murder attributed to man throughout history. For Whites to acknowledge the campaign of genocide against themselves somehow transfers the bloodguilt of that genocide onto the White dissenter himself.
Rushdoony pegged this ‘party of love’ aright:
Love, thus, as the great humanistic virtue, has become all-important. Those who belong to the party of love are the holy ones of the humanistic world even in the commission of crimes, whereas, the orthodox Christian, as a hate-monger by definition, is guilty even in the non-commission of a crime.1
But beyond the subordinate legislation regarding manslaughter and indemnification against accidental injury, Rushdoony treated both the prohibitions on hybridization and all texts governing nature-conservancy as outworkings of the sixth word as well. For the hybridization of animals and crops generally allows the transmission of genetic disorders and blights which would not ordinarily adhere beyond the genetic strains in which they first arise.
Alienists argue that because men can procreate cross-racially, that then means all men are really of the same ‘kind,’ and the same race, and therefore, miscegenation does not qualify as hybridization. But the codes dealing with hybridization such as Leviticus 19:19 say just the opposite: that different ‘kinds’ are in many cases capable of reproduction resulting in chimeras. This is the whole point of hybrid laws – to prevent the conjugation of things which are just similar enough to commingle, but of clearly different breeds, nonetheless. To say otherwise is to reduce the hybrid laws to absurdity. So too would it fly in the face of the universal opinion of the historic exegetes who ever interpreted those codes as prohibitions on breeding hybrids.
This is why Rushdoony treated the subject of hybridization and eco-conservancy under the umbrella of the sixth law – because hybrids are usually of diminished qualities from their purebred parents, and tend to partial if not full sterility. In biology this concept is known as ‘hybrid inviability,’ which leads at length to the terminus of the mixed strains. Sometimes the sterility is immediate in the first generation of admixture; other times it becomes apparent in the second or third, or progressively as one examines the history of a mixed population. Positive fertility studies demonstrate conclusively that human pairings of homogeneous third and fourth cousins tend to be the most fertile. The inverse corollary of which is that couplings further removed genetically prove less fertile. As it turns out, modern genetic studies affirm the biblical order: if seriously seeking to ‘be fruitful and multiply,’ one should wed homogeneously ‘from one’s close side’ (the literal translation of Adam’s rib). The dominion mandate works just as we would expect if it, the ethnic insularity codes, and our physiology were authored by the same Mind – synergistically and complementarily.
Concomitant with diminished fertility, when speaking of humans, this dynamic takes into its scope matters cultural and spiritual as well, because racially mixed populations never find social, ethical, or political equilibrium. As Yeats put it, “Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold.” Miscegenated societies grow sterile by the fact that they cannot reproduce and perpetuate the social virtues of their parent races. This results in either civil war, secession, and resegregation, or the low, protracted simmer which pits all the irreconcilable elements into heated violence; boiling off all virtues, it spoils the whole stew. Such as do not slowly die out of internal pressures are overcome by purer breeds whose corporate character remains unsullied, unalloyed, and unattenuated. The end of the mongrel society is, in any case, death.
Which is to say that I agree with Rushdoony’s consideration of the topic relative to the sixth law. I very much commend the reader to the good reverend’s writing on the topic, but I do not think the sixth word the only source, nor perhaps even the primary source, of the hybridization codes. As we shall see in the next segment, they also descend from the seventh law.
But to whatever extent our neo-churchmen veer from the Catechism’s demand of indemnification and its express racial implications, they reveal themselves plainly hostile to the sixth word, evincing a radical mania in their minds seated in the place of God’s law.
- R.J. Rushdoony, Institutes of Biblical Law, “The Sixth Commandment,” p. 285 ↩