A Kinist Commentary on the Ten Commandments: The Ninth Word

THE FIRST WORD
THE SECOND WORD
THE THIRD WORD
THE FOURTH WORD
THE FIFTH WORD
THE SIXTH WORD
THE SEVENTH WORD
THE EIGHTH WORD

THE NINTH WORD

Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour.

Westminster Larger Catechism question 144 lists among the duties ascribed in the ninth word “the preserving and promoting of truth between man and man, and the good name of our neighbour, as well as our own; appearing and standing for the truth; . . . fully, speaking the truth . . . in matters of judgment and justice, and in all other things whatsoever; . . . discouraging tale-bearers, flatterers, and slanderers; love and care of our own good name, and defending it when need requireth; . . . studying and practicing of whatsoever things are true, honest, lovely, and of good report.”

Among the things conversely forbidden by the ninth word in question 145, we find “all prejudicing the truth, and the good name of our neighbours, as well as our own, . . . suborning false witnesses, . . . pleading for an evil cause, . . . passing unjust sentence, calling evil good, and good evil; . . . concealing the truth, undue silence in a just cause, and holding our peace when iniquity calleth for either a reproof from ourselves, or complaint to others; . . . perverting [truth] to a wrong meaning, or in doubtful and equivocal expressions, to the prejudice of truth or justice; speaking untruth, lying, . . . stopping our ears against just defense.”

Looking on American society in the throes of cultural revolution, and having narrowly survived the gulag erected under the same principles as those then sweeping America, Solzhenitsyn warned somberly: “Live not by lies.” We did not heed him. So it is today that the entire Western world languishes under an all-pervasive web of lies which all men are demanded to tell in unison. If the above definition provided by the catechism doesn’t set off fireballs in your mind around the unfolding secular orthodoxy of Political Correctness, which ostensibly mandates lying to some degree on almost every subject, odds are you are a cheerful collaborator in the lie. Or at the very least, benumbed to it.

What is political correctness? Merriam-Webster’s dictionary defines the adjectival form as: “conforming to a belief that language and practices which could offend political sensibilities (as in matters of sex or race) should be eliminated.” And the “simple definition” is “agreeing with the idea that people should be careful to not use language or behave in a way that could offend a particular group of people.” Bill Lind elaborates:

If we look at it analytically, if we look at it historically, we quickly find out exactly what it is. Political Correctness is cultural Marxism. It is Marxism translated from economic into cultural terms. . . .

Since reality contradicts [PC], reality must be forbidden. It must become forbidden to acknowledge the reality of our history. People must be forced to live a lie, and since people are naturally reluctant to live a lie, they naturally use their ears and eyes to look out and say, “Wait a minute. This isn’t true. I can see it isn’t true,” the power of the state must be put behind the demand to live a lie. That is why ideology invariably creates a totalitarian state.

We are talking about a moral philosophy the core principles of which are to conceal, obfuscate, distort, and suppress the truth in any number of areas by the full spectrum of social, economic, and political force – legal or otherwise. To speak truth contrary to Marxian propaganda with respect to race, culture, gender, history, ecology, medicine, or any other topic is forbidden. Conversely, corporate assent to and programmed recitation of lies are declared mandatory. It is demanded of every man, woman, and child in every aspect of their lives to be an active participant in conspiracy against the truth.

From the perspective of the PC-initiate, no fate is too grim for him who dares tell the truth. If the legal consequences of such trespasses are severe and draconian, the social consequences are oft more so, and winked at by the legal system. Relegating truth-tellers to pariahhood is the goal. Or at least the goal short of a shallow grave.

As witnessed in recent events, when a Christian baker or wedding photographer dares not collude in the make-believe sham of ‘gay marriage,’ he is sued and harassed by mobs, myriad government agencies, and media: the official unofficial conclusion of the matter is banishment to the outskirts of society. Any with the temerity to reject what all know for a lie, whether in public or private, are subject to an avalanche of public scorn, including the ruination of career, calls for confiscation of the offender’s children, imprisonment, and psychological reprogramming for all in his orbit of association. Total marginalization. And in the American prison system, confinement on any charge can be a death sentence – especially so for White Christians arraigned for trespass against the PC doctrines of race. When violence ensues on the politically incorrect, in or out of the judicial complex, and irrespective of all other facts, the hive-society – frothing zealots and demoralized reluctants alike – shrug their collective shoulders and mutter, “He had it coming.” So as it pertains to violators of PC shibboleths, death threats are a matter of course, and people feel free to publicly wish for the children of such traditionalists to be molested by deviants so as to ‘fix them.’ Threats of rape and violence aimed even at the wives and children of those who speak truth on an array of subjects are now commonplace, and the system regards such horror aloofly, as a natural consequence and justified response from enlightened post-Christian society. All are expected to join in the collective hexing of the offender by voicing desires to see him killed, his wife violated, his children seized by the state and raised according to the sadistic whim of whatever privileged group his words or actions may have offended. Perhaps no harm was done another? No matter. Neither the substance of God’s law nor any mitigating circumstances rise to consideration of the Alienist when one is perceived to run askance of cultural Marxism.

And that with an eye toward raising ‘certain groups of people’ above criticism, and demoting others – White Christian Males especially – below any level of respect. Inconceivably, Political Correctness contains within it the mutually exclusive concepts of egalitarianism, White guilt, equalitarianism, and deference to the Alien over the familiar. Whatever it does not level, it inverts. It is an ingrained visceral commitment to collective perjury. It taints and corrodes everything. This is, I regret to say, patently the social ethic now installed even in the churches. And as Otto Scott and Rushdoony noted, it leaves no Christian doctrine untouched:

[Scott] I don’t really know what the church today sermonizes against. Once we… when we really come to it, all sins seem to have shriveled down to racism.
[Rushdoony] Yes.
[Scott] Beyond that there is no sin.
[Rushdoony] Yes. That is very good. That is about the only sin that is left. And that is an odd thing to choose as a sin, because one of the characteristics of people all over the world has been a preference for their own. People prefer their own families. They prefer their own nationality or their own race, which is entirely legitimate as long as they don’t abuse and mistreat others. I believe that the world has seen more racism in this century than ever before precisely because we are trying to equalize everything and we are trying to obscure the differences and say they don’t exist. And when you do that, you are going to create a situation where there will be a bootlegged and resentful recognition of differences.
[Scott] Well, you drive underground what doesn’t belong underground. The business of justice, the business of treating people fairly, the business of equality before law and meritocracy, so to speak, of making opportunities open to all, the whole idea of a civilized society is based on the idea of mutual respect. But respect is one thing. A denial of reality is something else. If in order to get along or to placate we have to pretend that everyone has the same intellect and intelligence, the same ability, then we have downgraded all intelligence and all ability.
[Rushdoony] Yes.
[Scott] It is usually a question of let’s you and he be equal. Not you and I.
[Rushdoony] Yes. Well, by obscuring the fact of differences, what we have done is to create a climate in which any awareness of reality is gone.
[Scott] Well, it is dishonest.
[Rushdoony] Yes. You are not living in a real world if you don’t recognize differences and say he is better than I am. He is of another color. And he or she is not as good as I am in this particular field where I am good.¹

As Scott observed, this new ethical paradigm displacing Christian morality in the street and the pulpit is fundamentally dishonest. And about virtually everything. With lies thus institutionalized in all our institutional denominations, if one speaks of the distinctions between races in terms of color, crime, intelligence, athleticism, or even their mention in Scripture, he will be tried for heresy. If he speak of objective moral, aesthetic, or cultural standards, superiors and inferiors, the biblical definitions of nation and family, an honest approach to history, or even the objectivity and unity of truth, he will be slandered as ‘worse than a pedophile’ and driven from the communion table. The undergirding presuppositions of this ersatz orthodoxy are well-acknowledged for cultural Marxism. As Theodore Dalrymple commented on communist societies,

In my study of communist societies, I came to the conclusion that the purpose of communist propaganda was not to persuade or convince, nor to inform, but to humiliate; and therefore, the less it corresponded to reality the better. When people are forced to remain silent when they are being told the most obvious lies, or even worse when they are forced to repeat the lies themselves, they lose once and for all their sense of probity. To assent to obvious lies is to co-operate with evil, and in some small way to become evil oneself. One’s standing to resist anything is thus eroded, and even destroyed. A society of emasculated liars is easy to control. I think if you examine political correctness, it has the same effect and is intended to.²

To the extent that citing or even being suspected of favoring politically incorrect facts results in civil repercussions such as detainment, investigation, audit, arrest, all manner of litigious action, and even extradition, these thought-crimes are ever assumed to be actionable in the domain of the courts. Whereas, in Christian law, though lying is sin, petty lying incurs no civil penalty. However, another form of false witness – perjury – does. And since the the penology of perjury is being brought to bear in the case of ‘hate crimes,’ it is as if we are, each one of us, now ever on the witness stand. Except, in this inverted order, men suffer the recompense for perjury if they tell the truth, even in the most mundane matters, and for the most benevolent motives.

The legal artifice known as ‘hate crime’ is that wherein straight White Christian Men receive draconian punishment not for any injury wrongly done another, but for the mere suspicion of his thinking forbidden truths in proximity of minorities. And that, even when the minority be the majority.

The sacrosanct status ascribed to minorities upon which this legal artifice rests also drags the matter into the highest category of lying – blasphemy – speaking falsely or defamatorily about God. (Thus the matter touches also the third word.) For in the new orthodoxy minorities (or their archetypes) comprise a new pantheon of the gods. We know this because they are being venerated as gods, and to demure from recitation of the mandated lies exalting the new Baals, one is regarded as the worst sort of criminal – one depraved beyond comparison to any other category of criminal, reprobate beyond all remedy. Of course, to treat the matter so, they have to overtly declare good evil and evil good. So they have. The lie is total, pervading their deepest convictions, and the irrationality of that lie compels them to a ravening state, ‘suppressing the truth in unrighteousness’ (Rom. 1:18), and, therein, total reprobation.

In Christian and Anglo-Saxon law slander, lying about someone to his hurt, was always illegal. But in 1913, not coincidentally, just two months in advance of the Federal Reserve Act, the Anti-Defamation League of B’nai B’rith was born. Its charter states:

The immediate object of the League is to stop, by appeals to reason and conscience and, if necessary, by appeals to law, the defamation of the Jewish people. Its ultimate purpose is to secure justice and fair treatment to all citizens alike and to put an end forever to unjust and unfair discrimination against and ridicule of any sect or body of citizens.

Though defamation is taken in common speech as a synonym for slander or libel, which mean lying about someone, it is often prosecuted throughout the Western world as telling injurious truths – particularly when it regards ‘minorities,’ i.e., non-Whites and non-Christians. “The truth is no defense.” And the now-ubiquitous terminology of ‘hate speech’ is couched in this anti-defamation principle. These pseudo-Talmudic penological categories are entirely at odds with the traditional reckoning of the ninth word, which commands “speaking the truth . . . in matters of judgment and justice, and in all other things whatsoever.” This means that Christians can in no way move nor act in harmony with the values of the Jewish ADL. They are at opposite poles of the ethical spectrum, as Judaism regards the whole of the New Testament to be the consummate defamation of the Jews. In fact, ADL chairman Abe Foxman describes the New Testament and Christian preaching as ‘deicide libel‘. Under direction of the ADL, the federal government effectively treats those who believe “Jews are responsible for the death of Christ” as anti-Semites,³ tacitly condemning all Bible-believing Christians – a resolution which portends much evil.

But Alienist churchmen – virtually the whole of the institutional church today – have taken to this anti-Christ bridle, affirming the ethics of the ADL as well as their sister organization, the Frankfurt School, to be the default Christian view. Even though granting such directly abrogates the Christian faith. It’s incomprehensible.

The violence and madness endemic to these baptized lies led Rushdoony to affirm Henry Miller’s terminology for our age – ‘the time of the assassins’:

{E]quality as a philosophical and religious faith is at work. All people are equals; woman is equal to man, and man is equal to God. As a result, there must be in principle a war against differences. Not only unisex but uniman is the goal, the bland, neutral person. Henry Miller sees the return to Paradise only through the destruction of history, meaning, law, and morality. There must be a time of total destruction, the “time of the assassins,” and the new world can only come when the old world is forgotten. This means a period of anarchy, racial amalgamation, and universal human hermaphroditism (“the birth of male-and-female in every individual”) and then the new world may appear.⁴

The ‘new world’ of Rushdoony’s and Miller’s appraisal was also predicted beforetime by Burke, Orwell, and others. It is the age of ‘the Big Lie,’ ‘an age of consolidation,’ a time for which Isaiah’s words are well suited:

And judgment is turned away backward,
And justice standeth afar off;
For truth is fallen in the street,
And equity cannot enter. (Isa. 59:14)

The Isaiahic imagery of Truth assaulted in the street, Equity restrained at the gate so as not to help her, Judgment turned away from the crime scene by compromised priests, and Justice standing aloof – it is a poignant anthropomorphic metaphor indeed; for in our day our daughters are raped and murdered in the streets by the little Baals of Political Correctness while we are restrained at the gate by blackguard magistrates and turned backward by subverted churchmen. They will not hear. They refuse to see. Though much acclaimed in the age of Alienism, truth, justice, judgment, and equity are only affirmed by a total inversion of content. And because genuine justice and equity have been outlawed, the revolutionaries can locate no point of objectivity to anchor them. Once Justice is defined as robbery, overthrow, dispossession, and genocide of White Christians, and equity as pretending that men and women are interchangeable, that gender is fluid, and that heathens and savage races are the cultural and spiritual equals or betters of White Christians, the revolutionaries themselves find their principles unlivable. Because all attempts at living that inverted ethic implodes civil society, even if attempted under the auspices of an egalitarian interpretation of Galatians 3:28. But the truth is worse in their eyes. They prefer the endless death which their views entail over truth. As it has been said, “those who hate Me love death” (Prov. 8:36).

But the Christian man is commanded to “give no heed to Jewish myths” (Titus 1:14) – think Frankfurt School Marxism and Boasian anthropology – but rather “cast down imaginations and every high thing which exalts itself contrary to the knowledge of God” (2 Cor. 10:5). As such, Alienism is inherently at odds with the ninth word, which is intelligible only under the assumptions of Kinism.

 

THE TENTH WORD

Tweet