This is a response to Trevaris Tutt’s lengthy article, “How Then Shall My White Brothers Live? The Danger of Ink and Internet.”
Under new management, the revision of American Vision is still gaining steam. Born-again SJW that he is, Joel is compelled to keep pushing the envelope of virtue signalling to the Left. Hence, he has provided his website as a platform for a Black fellow by the name of Tutt. I mean, he says “gospel” a lot, and he’s Black, so he will no doubt have sage words on how Christians might apply God’s Law to the problems of the Black community. Which, he reveals, isn’t really a Black problem, but the White Problem.
Tutt prefaces his essay with an Aesopian segment titled “Responsibility and Sympathy,” a parable about a half-literate, drug-abusing, thieving, disrespectful, violent, and promiscuous middle-school girl who uses abortion as birth control.
But, surprise — she’s the product of a broken home and has been abused. Didn’t see that coming, did you?
And here’s the real twist — she might not be Black. She might even be White. Now then, don’t you feel bad for having assumed her to be out of some background in which these curses are dominant?
Tutt wants you to ruminate on your guilt a bit before proceeding so that you will be more, shall we say, pliant; and that, so that you will accept his highly questionable bill of goods without question.
Never mind that if you hadn’t initially envisioned a Black girl, but a White girl of your own community, you would be deemed just as guilty for ignoring the plight of Blacks which Mr. Tutt intends to highlight. But I digress.
Either way, now that you’ve been been coached to view the girl’s sin as understandable in her circumstance, you’re ready. Now that you’re guilt-primed, Tutt will reveal the moral of the story:
What is my point? It is that, clearly, we understand that the responsibility still stands for the young girl to live righteously, but at the same time, it is not a contradiction to sympathize with her due to her experience. We can sympathize, understanding that there is a snowball effect or a domino effect. Anyone who cannot simultaneously hold her responsible for her sin, and at the same time condemn her oppressors, and understand why she has made the decisions in life she has, is simply not reflecting Christ.
Of course, those who did all those terrible things to her growing up are also culpable for their crimes! And when he speaks of the girl’s oppressors, the pre-tenderized conscience of the reader wants to go along with him. But this is a bait-and-switch.
Yes, where you thought the ‘oppressors’ he mentioned were the girl’s degenerate mother, her absentee father, and the dealer poisoning body and soul, Tutt slipped another perpetrator into their place. The shift is subtle here, don’t miss it:
Unfortunately, from the narrative we hear from some white people—and sadly, white professing Christians—we are often led to believe it is the nature of black people to live this way.
You see, it isn’t the people who actually harmed the girl that Tutt is taking aim at. It’s you. White people. White Christians specifically. No mention of those who hurt the girl recurs in Tutt’s article, but the guilt and anger you were coached to feel against them is hereafter channeled exclusively against White people at large who had nothing to do with the hurts of the hypothetical child.
And pardon me, but I thought AV operated on the assumption of Reformed theology, inclusive of things like original sin and federal theology. Insofar as we’re speaking of sin, of course it is Black people’s nature to live that way! Because they are sinners, and inheritors of generational curses from their sires. And to say otherwise is ultimately to indict not White Christians, but orthodox Christianity itself.
The title of his next segment, “Context is Key,” is to declare this moral obfuscation the remedy to the problem that is objective biblical ethics.
Think I’m overstating the case?
[W]hen I gave more context, it helped us understand the picture more clearly. We weren’t so quick to judge her as harshly. Obviously, changing her circumstances is not going to save her from hell, but it would be good for her soul now, and would be helpful for the sanctification for any Christian in the long run.
How exactly does informing us that a baby-murdering whore (that’s the biblical terminology) was spawned by people as bad as herself put an onus on us to judge her by some other standard than God’s law and plain truth? There is a term for this sort of sliding scale of justice Tutt advocates: it’s moral relativism — alternately known in Scripture as corruption, lawlessness, or injustice.
Later on in his piece, Tutt chides as bigots any who might appraise his article as promoting a social gospel. But the notion that we should lay aside biblical standards, and the question of Suzy Somebody’s eternal salvation in favor of subjective sympathies and that this would ‘be good for her soul’, is absurd. Dismissing her eternity in favor of some social salvation is social gospel by definition. And Tutt knows this, which will become all the more evident.
When we look at the black community today and do not give a clear context of the historical oppression of black people from the 1600s even up until now, it is easy just to write off blacks as savages. It is easy to say that ‘we just need to preach the Gospel to them,’ or ‘blacks are the biggest problem for blacks,’ or ‘blacks just need to get saved and straighten up like everyone else.’
Let the record show that after having shamed the reader for assuming Suzy Somebody was Black, he informs us she represents the Black community after all. But you’re still a bigot for having rightly guessed his analogy.
And he now places a double incentive on the reader to appraise the Black community according to a different, lesser, and entirely undefined standard to that of Whites, as the only alternative is to ‘just write Blacks off as savages.’ According to Tutt, we must grade Blacks on this amorphous curve, which, as far as we can discern, amounts to giving them a collective pass on their pandemic criminality. Because they are obviously oppressed. Which he proves by reference to a podcast that recites the Soros/BLM lie that Blacks are unfairly targeted by police. The details of which I’ll not entertain here with anything more than an eyeroll.
Nevertheless, Mr. Tutt, you cannot have it both ways; you cannot admit Blacks commit the majority of crime and then plead that they are unfairly targeted by police. It’s one or the other. You cannot identify their behavior as patently savage, but rebuke us for seeing them as savages.
Tutt underscores his motive — to impress upon White people’s consciences that “injustice still exists against black people, particularly in America, and many white evangelicals simply ignore the injustices, or fail to comprehend their duty to help their brethren.”
As if injustice doesn’t exist for us all, Whites included. America has departed from her Christian foundation. And as of passage of the 14th Amendment, limited domestic slavery has been transmogrified into universal federal slavery. We’re all on the same plantation, now. And Uncle Sam is a far harsher master than Johnny Reb ever dreamed of being.
Overtures contra ‘injustice’ ring entirely hollow following on the heels of his elaborate apologetic for why we should judge Black behavior on a much less stringent basis than that of Whites. But we realize this, too, is another bait-and-switch: Tutt is clearly equivocating on the meaning of justice, ostensibly redefining it to mean whatever is perceived to benefit Blacks at any given time.
This is Black Supremacy.
Which he underscores in the next section, “White Privilege and the Gospel”:
In this country, even if dark skinned people seem disproportionately to engage in the most crime and perhaps even the most sin, dark skinned people are also the most oppressed, for various reasons. . . . The difference is, when white men speak out against tyranny in this country, the ground shakes in the White House. When black men cry out against tyranny, the ground opens up beneath their own feet. When white women cry oppression, mountains move. When black women cry out oppression, mountains grow.
While we congratulate Mr. Tutt for his admission of Black criminality (a thing virtually never admitted), he only does so once again to prime the reader to accept a spurious narrative — that Blacks are uniquely oppressed and that their remonstrances are ignored while the wheels of state may be halted and reversed at a word from any White man.
This is a pure inversion of reality. The entire system favors Blacks, and everyone else for that matter, over Whites – on which, for brevity’s sake, I won’t expand here beyond saying that Blacks have innumerable institutions in government and media at every level devoted exclusively to imposing their collective will over White people. And let alone opposing it, any White who dares acknowledge it without hearty approval risks career, reputation, and even his very life. Because any White who has reservations about the de facto subordination of Whites is regarded by minorities and elite alike as worthy of death. Whites are butchered like livestock for this very thing every day — suspicion of not being pro-Black enough. This is apparent in that virtually every case in which a Black strangles, shoots, stabs, or beats a White person to death, the defense ever bubbling on their lips to police and jury is that the victim was ‘racist.’ By which they mean that the victim did something they didn’t like, or the Black just didn’t like the looks of them. And still, all the media and government do in response is to craft policy to further White marginalization, to restrict our speech, free association, and property rights, and to sermonize endlessly on how much we deserve it, and much worse besides.
Taken together, the insinuation is that if Mad Max levels of violence and mayhem are Black normalcy, and even if they are disproportionately aimed at Whites, and all despite Blacks’ having been evangelized for centuries, it is White people’s fault somehow; and it can be ameliorated only by Whites facilitating more of the same against ourselves and our children.
If anyone questions whether seeking justice for blacks is just a “social Gospel,” or black liberation theology, or being a “Social Justice Warrior,” or another gospel, they should think again. Seeking justice for blacks in America is a picture of the Gospel.
As mentioned before, Tutt rebukes those who identify his social gospel as such. And here, inserting again his altered definition of justice, what we confirmed to be social gospel by definition, he assures us to be the real gospel. Yes, grading Black sins on a curve, and Whites giving Blacks whatever they demand — which is to say, the total legal, social, and religious subordination of Whites — this is Tutt’s gospel. This he follows with another slight of hand:
As long as black men and women stand alone for the most part (except for white liberals who only have answers that handicap us), we will be looked at as people who are just crying victim, when we actually live among wolves—white, brown, and black wolves! When a white person can see it, and actually humbles themselves [sic] and suffers with people that society says are not ‘their own,’ and when they do not have to, that is pointing them to Christ.
What’s that, you say? Among Whites this narrative is uniformly embraced by liberals? Why would heathens and heretics rally unreservedly to this cause you assure us to be the real gospel, when White Christians do not?
You admit your position to be the native belief of liberals. So for White Christians to take it up is to be converted to liberal thought.
And to acknowledge the fact that this understanding of the gospel is uniformly dismissed by Christians, but natural to heathens and heretics, is to identify your gospel with paganism.
Confirming this further, the concluding segment, “How Then Shall We Live,” opens:
Honestly, people make what we are saying to be more complicated than it is. This is not rocket science. It is not deep theology. It is basic.
If your ‘basic’ theology is that of liberals (heathens and heretics), you profess yourself to be no Christian.
By this point he uses the term the oppressed as a synonym for Blacks, saying that if White Christians, with all our exegetical skills, see no outline of application in Scripture for elevating the oppressed, “I focus on them acknowledging the issue first. I focus on them seeing even the fact that we should even do something about it.”
So prior to discussion of biblical remedies, he demands we take for granted that Blacks are the oppressed, and Whites, the oppressor (or at least un-oppressed), a spurious sentiment on its own. After all, it requires us to presume Obama is at some unfair disadvantage compared with the White kid mucking stalls on a farm. It presupposes that the Black kid with a C average who gets a full ride to a prestigious university is somehow injured by the White A student who worked his way through city college. Does the White telephone lineman risking his life every day live a privileged existence in comparison to the Black barber?
Even in the case of an elite White — say the CEO of a company — in comparison with a Black woman working at McDonald’s, the power dynamic favors the Black fast food worker. Think about it: if the White professional claimed to have been mistreated by the Black girl who called him a “stupid @ss Cracker,” her job would suffer less jeopardy than would that of the White CEO were the tables reversed. Yes, if the White CEO was identified as the same man who insulted the Black drive-thru cashier, calling her an “innumerate ghetto girl” or some such thing, it would be headline news. The man would receive endless death threats to himself, his wife, and his children. His kids might have to drop out of school for their own safety. The press would harass his company and all entities that did business with said company until he was fired. And his reputation in business would be ruined forever. All on the word of a Black fast food worker.
Worse still, all of these same consequences could just as easily befall the White CEO in the first scenario if he attempted to get the Black girl fired. Even if she were the one who called names, the fact that a well-to-do White would attempt to injure the employ of a Black woman would itself set all the same dominoes tumbling, costing him everything, and making of her the civil rights celebrity du jure.
No White man in antebellum America had so much power over the lives of Blacks as the average Black has over the lives of Whites today. No White slaveowner was thought justified to murder Blacks on suspicion of their harboring reservations about White people. But when a White is suspected of being “racist” (i.e., not obedient to the authority of melanin), this is taken for granted as justification for assault, and even murder. Any White man suspected of harboring reservations about Blacks, or their right to his property, is provocation of Blacks, after all. If Black-on-White assault or murder is prosecuted at all, it is typically downgraded to an aggravated category. Worse in fact, it is quite normal that in the case that the White victim survives, he is charged with a “hate crime” for somehow having his assailant feel that he disliked him on a racial basis. And this is really the bar of proof with respect to insulting protected classes — the perception of the “victim” – not what a White person does or says, not really even what the White person feels about a minority, but only how minority accusers feel about White people. That such a concept at law exists for the benefit of Blacks over Whites should tell you everything you need to know of racial hierarchy in America today. Be it our language, standards of civility, grammar, expectations of safety for our families, execution of law, preference for the familiar, or a thousand other things, every iota of our identity is declared subordinate to the whim of all minorities. Blacks are assumed to have moral authority over not only our words, but our thoughts, and even our subconscious thoughts of which we ourselves are unaware, but subject to their clairvoyance, nonetheless.
They demand a cringing obsequiousness on our part wherein we must smile or keep our eyes ever downcast, but yet reserve to themselves an incontestable right to interpret this, too, as based in fear, and therefore an incitement to their righteous violence as well. There is no escaping their claims of righteous indignation, either way.
While he ascribes to Whites hyper-agency in all things, Whites are in fact, by politic, social zeitgeist, and law, uniquely denied basic human agency in all things. While Blacks who have been afforded greater legal, social, and political rights than us moan that their degenerate condition is somehow a denial of their “personhood” by Whites, Whites are denied the right to our own minds and souls under God. This is the outrageous power dynamic today, but folks like Mr. Tutt insist it isn’t enough. Blacks need even more power over Whites. But there is literally nothing left to give, save, perhaps, our lives.
Many are the number of my people who have sacrificed their lives upon that altar already through liberal delusions of egalitarianism. They are part of the pandemic statistic of Black-on-White murder. And the general plan of immigration-integration is, according to the continual and exultant boasts of minorities, the Final Solution to the White Problem. Meaning that our genocide is the ultimate goal of the coalition of aggrieved peoples. The only milestone yet achieved for the likes of Tutt is the completion of our genocide.
But before he divulges his tangible advice to White people, he must reassert White guilt, lest we come to our senses enough to test these spirits as the Theologue taught us (1 John 4:1). And this time he gives us both barrels:
There is nothing new under the sun. During slavery, there were white people going to church every Sunday believing they lived in the greatest country ever to exist, all the while sitting right on top of a system of utter oppression they believed was directly sanctioned and smiled upon by our Lord. The same was true during the civil rights movement. The same was true all during an era where whites, in the name of Christian civilization, defied due process in order to lynch blacks for all kinds of accused crimes the courts couldn’t prove. So, while my ancestors were being brutally beaten, raped, and their children were torn apart from them, many never to be seen again, white evangelicals were ‘just preaching the gospel.’
This is the Leftist narrative he expects you to take for granted as true. And if you do, I dare say he has you, body and soul. To concede to this narrative is to be converted to a worldview wholly foreign to orthodox Christianity. And if so converted, you will lay your very children on the sacrificial stone at his beck and call just as apostatized Israelites did before the effigy of Moloch.
He doesn’t expect you to call his bluff at this point. He expects no White man would still dare cling to the understanding of our Christian sires. Positing it as his benchmark definition of evil, he has guided us to repudiate our Christian legacy, and the testimony of our better, more orthodox fathers, not to mention Scripture.
But we do dare. We call his bluff. We stand with the judgment of our fathers, because they stood on God’s Word. Unlike Mr. Tutt, who can but switchfoot among cultural Marxism, psychological manipulation, Liberationist theology, moral relativism, Black supremacy, and sundry forms of humanism.
Which is made all the more apparent by the heroes to whom he commends us — the abolitionists, whom he admits were not orthodox Christians in the main. Yeah. Try none. Abolitionism was strictly the domain of Unitarians, agnostics, atheists, transcendentalists, higher critics of the Bible, and the assorted cults. The orthodox Christians were all on the other side, which acknowledged slavery to be sanctioned and regulated in Scripture. But this is a digression which I haven’t time nor space to defend here. Suffice it to say, Tutt’s own description inadvertently concedes the point that orthodox Christians have been of one mind on the matter historically — the side which he appraises as categorical evil.
At last we come to it — his practical advice to Whites on our further penance, diminution, and exsanguination. He asserts, “[B]ody cams on police officers, community control, the exposure of private and public prison systems through documentaries, and the exposure of unfair trials and arrest, are all examples of seeking justice today.”
So, bigger Orwellian govenment, more affirmative action and social advancement of Blacks into positions of power (i.e., systematic discrimination against Whites), Obama-esque community organizers, more race-hustlers like Sharpton and Jackson, and more agitators like the terrorist organization Black Lives Matter. Got it.
“The goal,” he says at length, “is to expose and dismantle ‘white supremacy.'”
I must have missed this mandate in Scripture for the sons of Japheth to engage in civilizational civil war against our Christian fathers to depose ourselves from the leadership of our own nations. In fact, this new mandate contradicts God’s Law directly (Deut. 1:13-16; 17:15).
And under the circumstance of Black legal, political, and social supremacy over Whites today, the only forms of supremacy left to be reckoned with are actual racial superiority in certain things, God-ordained distinctions that cannot be ameliorated except by the erasure of the offending race. This is the very matter upon which liberals are so loath to look — the fact that on a civilizational basis, Whites are superior to Blacks. This is the univocal testimony of history, and as Mr. Tutt’s entire argument assumes, contemporary experience. Whites have simply been more thoroughly aligned to Christian thought and behavior, and in accord with Providence and prophecy (Gen. 9), we were likewise prepared to a certain temperament and talents that Blacks, in the main, were not. Blacks have their own God-ordained gifts and handicaps.
If we can admit on an individual basis that we are not the equal of every other man in any number of things, or that our families occupy unequal stations alongside other clans, why should it be so difficult to accept that some peoples are superior or inferior in one way or another? The Scripture takes this for granted everywhere, that there are in fact “more noble-minded” peoples and some “nation[s] terrible from their beginning onward.” Question 124 of the Westminster Catechism takes natural human inequalities for granted as a good. And it is only a petty and covetous spirit that objects to this patent reality.
Fact is, this entire piece by Mr. Tutt presupposes racial hierarchy, albeit an unbiblical and conflicted one: both in his insistence that Blacks have sovereign right to all which belongs to Whites, including our nations, property, and our very souls, and in his countervailing assumption that Whites hold the panacea for healing the Black condition.
But in a segue of supreme hypocrisy, Tutt praises the Black Panthers as an exemplar of civic action on behalf of Blacks. I’ll say that again — the Black Panthers — a National Socialist organization for Blacks. Remember, when White people are National Socialists, they are called Nazis. And under McDurmon the new American Vision makes regular habit of condemning National Socialists to hell. So long as we’re talking about White ones, at least.
Tutt especially praises their police patrols. Even if they policed their own people, all the sources on the subject agree: said patrols were organized foremost to oppose the police. And such an institution organized to protect a racial community from its own constabulary on the grounds that said force is comprised largely of people of another race (and therefore, unfair) is a forthright proclamation of racial separatism. None of which bothers Mr. Tutt in the least, because we aren’t talking about White militias organized against the encroachment of Blacks. He would, after all, condemn the Klu Klux Klan without hesitation and without a care for his obvious double standard.
Even taken in the best light, if he meant only to laud the Panthers’ internal policing of the Black community (a la neighborhood watch), this too denotes an ethnocentrism which he and AV expressly disallow for Whites. Again, the hypocrisy is palpable.
Just in case you imagine we might be misreading him here, he continues, “In bringing the Gospel to particular communities, you also should teach them how to protect their own communities.”
That’s right, White Christians, when evangelizing the Black community, should make it a priority to teach Blacks how to organize along racial lines against White people — you know, against the majority of White Christians for whom racial identity is supposedly the zenith of evil.
He also praises an Africanesque-named rappist Sho Baracka for his And (&) Campaign, which turns out to be an apologetic for the union of “social justice” and “biblical values.” There is a word for that: liberation theology — the syncretism of communism and Christianity, social gospel, humanism, anti-Christianity.
Look, the constabulary power is one with which our communities vest magistrates to defend us from criminality. Whatever the ills of a given police or sheriff’s department, they represent us. Because they are us. If they violate God’s law as a matter of policy (and they often do), it is because the codes they are directed to enforce do so, and because the people want it. Police policy is a symptom, not the malady. And in spite of the Leftist propaganda, police brutality is actually worse on Whites. Considering the levels of Black crime and violence which is many orders of magnitude beyond that of Whites’, it’s clear that the police treat Blacks with kid gloves compared to their treatment of Whites. The police brutality issue is primarily a problem of racial abuse against Whites. But from Tutt’s perspective, for us to acknowledge the fact that Whites are more oppressed by police than Blacks is itself oppression of Blacks.
Truth be told, though, it is the hyper-violence introduced to our society by racial integration in the 1960s that set us on a course to transform sheriff Andy Taylor into the warrior cop of our day. We will not see a return of Peace Officers until the efficient cause of their transformation is removed — that being the very multicult diversity now peddled by American Vision. Officer Friendly can return only under the circumstance of a restored godly segregation. But ain’t nobody got time for that, right, Mr. Tutt?
The reason, Mr. Tutt, that the works of abolitionists receive less focus than slavemasters in Christian curriculum is because the abolitionists weren’t Christians. They were Unitarians, atheists, and heretics. Meantime, our slaveholding fathers were some of the greatest orthodox Christians in history. And all that that implies. It’s really that simple. Because the Bible both sanctions and regulates slavery in Old and New testaments — even chattel slavery of foreign races (Lev. 25) — and American slaveholding was prosecuted at law and by domestic conviction in pursuit of that Christian standard. Abolitionism was born of heresy and apostasy. Both in concept, and historical record.
None of which is to say that our fathers were set on maintaining that institution forever, just that a remote federal government breaking constitutional covenant and biblical law to convert the limited domestic institution of slavery into a universal civil institution was an entirely illicit course of action. The truth is that African slavery was never very profitable by comparison to other options. That’s why it was practiced by less than 3% of the White population. And as our fathers foresaw, and history has borne them witness, abolition proved no remedy at all, but rather a curse on both White and Black races.
Tutt concludes his article on the false pretext that “systemic injustice has played a role in degrading the black community,” insisting that White people provide more rehab, counseling, and government jobs for Blacks, as well as self-defense training, and private schools for Blacks!
All of which he sums up saying, “This is not just soup kitchen talk. This is reconstruction. This is ministry and mission. This is true religion. This is application of the Gospel.”
Let me catch my breath.
Absolute bilge.
What Mr. Tutt has offered is the terms of our civilizational surrender: the same list of demands typical of all insurgents against Christendom. According to his lexicon, ‘true religion’ and ‘application of the gospel’ is bigger government, more bureaucracy, more stringent discrimination against Whites at every level of society, total wealth transfer from Whites to minorities, complete dispossession of Whites in our own nations, and enslavement to non-Whites until this self-inflicted attrition results in our extinction.
He may have gussied it up in Christianese, viciously equivocated on the meaning of justice, pulled every sentimental heartstring, greased every groove of White guilt, deployed every tactic of psychological manipulation, and offered every verbal sleight of hand in the book, but examined on content, it is naught but a web of assorted heresies and blasphemies.
Back of his heterodox apologetic, his demand that we focus White creativity and resources to palliate Black dysfunction (sin) belies the Black tendency toward paternalism. He’s asking for help from Whites as Whites. So he wants White paternalism, just on Black terms, even if to the mortal detriment of Whites. Though granting that Blacks are the predominant criminals and sinners in America, it’s White folks’ fault. And Tutt demands White folks fix it. Fix Black folks, that is. Even if it kills us. And it does.
But that mass suicide on the part of Whites cannot cover the sins of Blacks. There is no juju in the White man’s blood to expiate the sins of Africa. It is Christ’s sacrifice alone can do that.
In conclusion, I know I’ve been stern with you here, Trevaris. But it’s necessary (Titus 1:13). You want help from White Christians. Well, you might not believe it, but we mean old ‘racists’, like all those that brought the gospel to the ears of your race, actually want good for Blacks too. And now, as then, the first and primary morsel of good we can bequeath to you is the truth. You must be confronted with what Liberalism will never offer you — candid address of your sin. Not excuses peddling off your degradation on us, not arguments for why we’re obliged to be more merciful than God Himself by appraising your behavior on a curve, not some Marxian rationale for why Whites must invert morality and natural order to place you over us, but the truth.
The truth is that God has elected Africans to very particular lineal curses (Gen. 9), declared Ethiopia “a people terrible from their beginning onward” (Is. 18:2, 7), and marked your faces uniquely with what my Reformed fathers called “the shade of death,” and which the Scripture compares with the hide of a predator, and soiled garments (Jer. 13:23).
But so, too, has God proclaimed His mercy to your race. Timothy discipled the Cushite slave. Simon of Cyrene, come of African stock, was conscripted (enslaved) by Romans (White men) to carry Christ’s very cross. What a profound honor. As many before this writer have noted, there is no doubt some perspectival uniqueness ordained for Africans to identify with Christ as the suffering Servant. Just as the Israelites present at the crucifixion had a unique perspective as priests, and the European Romans identified with Christ strongly on His status as the conquering King. The triadic divisions of mankind in Shem, Japheth, and Ham, like the refracted light filtered through a prism, have their own special identitarian vantages of, and relation to, Christ. These legacies should not be spurned, but cherished. We honor the Hammite’s place in the Kingdom of God.
So we White Christians wish nothing but your good. But your healing will come not from diatribes against us and our fathers who discipled your folk, nor from the extortion of our birthright, but by faith, keeping His commandments. For it is by faith that we are healed (Mk. 10:52). If you truly believe, then you will obey Him. And generation by generation, as the faithful lines within your race bridegroom in covenant faithfulness, that selective process will slowly redound to a more righteous stock. The savages (don’t shy away from that word) amongst you will recede in number as the blessing is to them who honor father and mother: it is the covenant faithful who shall inherit the land.
But even if you have presumed to lecture Whites on our obligation to serve and sanctify you, we all know that the coalition of the aggrieved tolerate no reciprocity: Whites who dare do as I am, replying in Christian candor, speaking truth to Blacks for your good, are denounced in the strongest terms. In spite of an orthodox confession, and speaking needed verities, we stand anathematized by minorities and Liberal (heretical) Whites alike, as outside the faith; and what’s more, as devoid of basic humanity, and deserving of whatever violence the dark races might visit upon us.
I cannot control the outcome in your heart either way. That is a work of the Holy Spirit. God willing, if you will humble yourself before the truth, you will recognize not only the verity of my words, but also the fact that we have supplied you in full the remedy you claim to seek. But if you neither recognize nor accept it, you weren’t really seeking it in the first place.
May God deliver both our peoples from the lies that grip their souls and establish the peace of Christ between our tribes, and to the furtherance of both races.
| Tweet |
|
|
|
