Eternal Generation; A Necessity of Nature, Will or Hypostasis? Wednesday, Oct 31 2012 

In my videos on the Trinity and in my writings I have stated that the Eternal Generation of the Son (EGS) extended from the nature of the Father and not the will. I have also claimed that the EGS was a necessity of nature (NN). Does this not infer that causality is a divine attribute and not a personal property? On its face it seems so. Let me explain:

By referring to the EGS as a NN I was merely distinguishing the EGS from the creation which extends from the will of the Father. This distinction between nature and will is found in Athanasius’  Against the Arians. (Orationes contra Arianos IV.) Discourse 3.64-66

“64. Therefore if the works subsist ‘by will and favour,’ and the whole creature is made ‘at God’s good pleasure,’ and Paul was called to be an Apostle ‘by the will of God,’ and our calling has come about ‘by His good pleasure and will,’ and all things have come into being through the Word, He is external to the things which have come to be by will, but rather is Himself the Living Counsel of the Father, by which all these things have come to be; by which David also gives thanks in the seventy-second Psalm. ‘Thou hast holden me by my right hand; Thou shalt guide me with Thy Counsel.’ How then can the Word, being the Counsel and Good Pleasure of the Father, come into being Himself ‘by good pleasure and will,’ like every one else? unless, as I said before, in their madness they repeat that He has come into being through Himself, or through some other . Who then is it through whom He has come to be? let them fashion another Word; and let them name another Christ, rivalling the doctrine of Valentinus ; for Scripture it is not. And though they fashion another, yet assuredly he too comes into being through some one; and so, while we are thus reckoning up and investigating the succession of them, the many-headed heresy of the Atheists is discovered to issue in polytheism and madness unlimited; in the which, wishing the Son to be a creature and from nothing, they imply the same thing in other words by pretending the words will and pleasure, which rightly belong to things originate and creatures. Is it not irreligious then to impute the characteristics of things originate to the Framer of all? and is it not blasphemous to say that will was in the Father before the Word? for if will precedes in the Father, the Son’s words are not true, ‘I in the Father;’ or even if He is in the Father, yet He will hold but a second place, and it became Him not to say ‘I in the Father,’ since will was before Him, in which all things were brought into being and He Himself subsisted, as you hold. For though He excel in glory, He is not the less one of the things which by will come into being. And, as we have said before, if it be so, how is He Lord and they servants ? but He is Lord of all, because He is one with the Father’s Lordship; and the creation is all in bondage, since it is external to the Oneness of the Father, and, whereas it once was not, was brought to be.

65. Moreover, if they say that the Son is by will, they should say also that He came to be by understanding; for I consider understanding and will to be the same. For what a man counsels, about that also he has understanding; and what he has in understanding, that also he counsels. Certainly the Saviour Himself has made them correspond, as being cognate, when He says, ‘Counsel is mine and security; mine is understanding, and mine strength .’ For as strength and security are the same (for they mean one attribute), so we may say that Understanding and Counsel are the same, which is the Lord. But these irreligious men are unwilling that the Son should be Word and Living Counsel; but they fable that there is with God , as if a habit , coming and going , after the manner of men, understanding, counsel, wisdom; and they leave nothing undone, and they put forward the ‘Thought’ and ‘Will’ of Valentinus, so that they may but separate the Son from the Father, and may call Him a creature instead of the proper Word of the Father. To them then must be said what was said to Simon Magus; ‘the irreligion of Valentinus perish with you ;’ and let every one rather trust to Solomon, who says, that the Word is Wisdom and Understanding. For he says, ‘The Lord by Wisdom founded the earth, by Understanding He established the heavens.’ And as here by Understanding, so in the Psalms, ‘By the Word of the Lord were the heavens made.’ And as by the Word the heavens, so ‘He hath done whatsoever pleased Him.’ And as the Apostle writes to Thessalonians, ‘the will of God is in Christ Jesus .’ The Son of God then, He is the ‘Word’ and the ‘Wisdom;’ He the ‘Understanding’ and the Living ‘Counsel;’ and in Him is the ‘Good Pleasure of the Father;’ He is ‘Truth’ and ‘Light’ and ‘Power’ of the Father. But if the Will of God is Wisdom and Understanding, and the Son is Wisdom, he who says that the Son is ‘by will,’ says virtually that Wisdom has come into being in wisdom, and the Son is made in a son, and the Word created through the Word which is incompatible with God and is opposed to His Scriptures. For the Apostle proclaims the Son to be the own Radiance and Expression, not of the Father’s will , but of His Essence Itself, saying, ‘Who being the Radiance of His glory and the Expression of His Subsistence .’ But if, as we have said before, the Father’s Essence and Subsistence be not from will, neither, as is very plain, is what is proper to the Father’s Subsistence from will; for such as, and so as, that Blessed Subsistence, must also be the proper Offspring from It. And accordingly the Father Himself said not, ‘This is the Son originated at My will,’ nor ‘the Son whom I have by My favour,’ but simply ‘My Son,’ and more than that, ‘in whom I am well pleased;’ meaning by this, This is the Son by nature; and ‘in Him is lodged My will about what pleases Me.

66. Since then the Son is by nature and not by will, is He without the pleasure of the Father and not with the Father’s will? No, verily; but the Son is with the pleasure of the Father, and, as He says Himself, ‘The Father loveth the Son, and sheweth Him all things.’ For as not ‘from will’ did He begin to be good, nor yet is good without will and pleasure (for what He is, that also is His pleasure), so also that the Son should be, though it came not ‘from will,’ yet it is not without His pleasure or against His purpose. For as His own Subsistence is by His pleasure, so also the Son, being proper to His Essence, is not without His pleasure. Be then the Son the object of the Father’s pleasure and love; and thus let every one religiously account of the pleasure and the not-unwillingness of God. For by that good pleasure wherewith the Son is the object of the Father’s pleasure, is the Father the object of the Son’s love, pleasure, and honour; and one is the good pleasure which is from Father in Son, so that here too we may contemplate the Son in the Father and the Father in the Son. Let no one then, with Valentinus, introduce a precedent will; nor let any one, by this pretence of ‘counsel,’ intrude between the Only Father and the Only Word; for it were madness to place will and consideration between them. For it is one thing to say, ‘Of will He came to be,’ and another, that the Father has love and good pleasure towards His Son who is His own by nature. For to say, ‘Of will He came to be,’ in the first place implies that once He was not; and next it implies an inclination two ways, as has been said, so that one might suppose that the Father could even not will the Son. But to say of the Son, ‘He might not have been,’ is an irreligious presumption reaching even to the Essence of the Father, as if what is His own might not have been. For it is the same as saying, ‘The Father might not have been good.’ And as the Father is always good by nature, so He is always generative  by nature; and to say, ‘The Father’s good pleasure is the Son,’ and ‘The Word’s good pleasure is the Father,’ implies, not a precedent will, but genuineness of nature, and propriety and likeness of Essence. For as in the case of the radiance and light one might say, that there is no will preceding radiance in the light, but it is its natural offspring, at the pleasure of the light which begat it, not by will and consideration, but in nature and truth, so also in the instance of the Father and the Son, one might rightly say, that the Father has love and good pleasure towards the Son, and the Son has love and good pleasure towards the Father.” http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf204.xxi.ii.iv.viii.html

There is no ontological distinction between hypostasis (person) and  nature, only a logical one. However, there is an ontological distinction (ad intra-not implying two numeric natures but within a single numeric nature. I am not going to delve into the formal, eminent, virtual issue) between nature and will. Technically, the necessity of the EGS is in the hypostasis of the Father and that by which the Father generates the Son is his nature. That is what I meant. I did not mean to infer that causality and the EGS pertained to the divine nature full stop.

The Conspiracy of Failed Integration (Part 2) Sunday, Oct 28 2012 

When confronted with the abject failure of Integration and the inexcusable savagery of the majority American Savage Blacks, Liberal, Yankee Apologists will complain that the Savage Black behavior is not their fault but the fault of their poverty caused by a system geared toward White Privilege. Is the crime problem of the majority Savage Black Community caused by poverty or is the poverty problem of the majority Savage Black Community caused by the extreme crime driven tendencies of their hearts, which said extreme tendency is displayed in their culture?

Before I begin, I want to diffuse any kind of a priori dismissal of this paper, as if the author was a member of the White Privileged Demographic and therefore, unqualified to speak to this issue. I was not raised in a Fundamentalist Christian Family. I was reared in the public school system and up until my conversion to Protestant Christianity around the age of 20, I was an anti-Christian, agnostic, spiritualistic, Yankee-ized, Negroized,  Darwinist. I was obsessed with Rap music and Marijuana.  My parents did not pay for my college. I am still paying for my undergraduate degree to this day. I was offered a merit-based scholarship to finish my last year in college, which said scholarship was taken from me a month before I graduated simply  because I became a Presbyterian and could not with a straight conscience  sing in a choir as my employer  required. This destroyed my life financially. I had to attain up to three jobs (All working on my feet) in the next year to pay all of the monthly bills which were now piled up on me due to the unfaithfulness and deceit of a certain Christian Institution. I could have obtained a high paying job with my newly attained 3 year degree in Culinary Arts but our Industries in America refuse to honor a man’s religious rights to obey the Fourth Commandment of Moses’ Law. Thus I was denied proper employment because of my religion, directly on literally dozens of occasions and indirectly on hundreds of occasions.  After a year of  working up to three jobs, my body broke down. For months I thought that I was getting a Kidney Stone but in actuality my vertebrate were beginning to become unstable as ligaments in my hip were beginning to give way. While at work one day in early of 2009 a ligament that holds my spine and my hip together tore, and has left me permanently disabled in my hip’s SI joint, and my L4 and L5.  As of late in 2012 I have improved little. I can no longer perform the career that I studied so long to attain and subjected myself to great debt for. I can stand for about an hour before I am in serious pain and I can only sit upright for about 45 minutes before I am in serious pain. I have had to get extremely creative to perform the two Hotel jobs that I work now. I make minimum wage at my full-time job and near minimum wage at my second job. When I was injured at work, I lost my Career, everything I had worked for my whole life and put myself in deep debt for,  my home with my friends and all my Christian friends which were many, my Church, and any chance to have a family. I was subsequently hounded by debtors who threatened to take me to court unless I paid them money I had no way to earn, and through constant badgering by these people I suffered a nervous breakdown. I now suffer from panic attacks and frequent occasions of severe heart palpitations. I literally now have nothing physical to live for outside of basic survival. Therefore, I have no sympathy whatsoever for the excuses of the Majority Savage Black Community who so vehemently blame others for their poverty, as if discrimination has anything to do with it. I have the ability to stand up for maybe a couple hours a day and I have two jobs! If ever the Savage Black Community wishes to complain of racial discrimination I will counter with their anti-Christian Yankee religious discrimination which has for the last 150 years completely exterminated everything that I would want to live for in this life.

Integration

John Henrik Clarke pointed out in his The Civil War & Its Aftermath[1], many Black Colleges have been taken over in the name of Integration and the American Blacks as a whole have integrated themselves into non-existence. Integration destroyed Black communities. In the pre-Integration communities that Clarke grew up in he remembered Black owned Grocery Stores, Black owned Gas Stations, and Black owned Hotels (Run by a woman named “Big Mama”),  which provided employment, and work environments for Black people, free from White racial discrimination. When Integration was instituted, Clarke complained that the educated Black people that were capable of sustaining these businesses left the Black communities to live in White communities. Black Civil Rights advocates like Marcus Garvey and Malcolm X wanted nothing to do with Integration.[2] They wanted Black Nationalism. They did not want their Black racial brethren dependent on White People for employment and progress. They wanted to earn the respect of the White man by proving that the Blacks could build a civilization themselves. Malcolm X found the whole idea of forced Integration completely hypocritical and antithetical to the entire idea of racial equality. X knew that the Whites would despise the Blacks even more, if they were forced to integrate with them, thus proving that the Blacks could not exist and flourish without the White man.

However, this agenda went against the Jesuit agenda as had been established by the destruction and rape of the South pursuant unto the 16th amendment. Edwin Allen Sherman, in his The Engineer Corps of Hell (1883) proved the Jesuits were behind all of this. Black Freemason W. E. B. Du Bois, of the Rockefeller-financed NAACP in 1910, despised Garvey. In his The Crises,[3]  Du Bois said,

“Marcus Garvey is, without doubt, the most dangerous enemy of the Negro race in America and in the world. He is either a lunatic or a traitor.” [Sound familiar my White Nationalist brother? ]

Garvey wanted Biblical Nationalism and separation of the races. Du Bois had notorious connections with high level Communists like Mao Tse Tung[4] (Top Post image) and advocated the exact opposite. You see, the Papacy wants a return to the international sovereignty of the Vatican and the dissolution of national sovereignty and distinct human identity. In the Encyclical of Pope Pius XI, December 23, 1929 he said, [Below image from EJP’s, VA III, pg. 1453 where he says, ” Next to JFK is the sinister Walter P. Reuther, President of the United Automobile Workers, Vice-President of the AFL-CIO, and a member of the Black Pope’s United World Federalists along with CFR member, Civil Rights Commission-member and President of NotreDameUniversity, Priest Theodore Hesburgh. To Randolph’s right is Rabbi Joachim Prinz, a personal acquaintance of SS/SD Adolf Eichmann while in Vienna and chairman of the American Jewish Congress which, under Reformed Rabbi Stephen S. Wise, betrayed European Jews by refusing to aid in their escape from Nazi-occupied Europe. On the extreme left is Martin Luther King, Jr., holding a plagiarized doctorate in systematic theology from Boston University’s School of Theology heavily influenced by Jesuits at nearby Boston College.”]

“4. Let Us begin with those things that seem more important because they have closer relation to the Holy See and to the government of the Church entrusted by Providence to the Supreme Pontiff. It seems especially opportune in this connection to recall some passages of Our first Encyclical, “Ubi Arcana.” In this letter We made the following complaint: “It is scarcely necessary to say with how much pain and grief We see Italy outside this friendly harmony of so many States. For Italy is Our own country, the country in which the overruling hand of God placed and fixed the See of His Vicar on earth. He placed it here in Rome, which had been the capital of that marvelous, yet limited empire, thus making it capital of the entire world. For thus it became the seat of a sovereignty that surpasses all national and political boundaries, that embraces all men and all peoples, like the sovereignty of Christ Himself, whom it represents and whose office it fills. The origin and character of this sovereignty, no less than the inviolable rights of conscience of millions of the Faithful throughout the world, require that it should be, in fact and in appearance, independent and free from every human authority and law, even though it be a ‘Law of Guarantees.”[5]

It is then also no surprise that the Freemasonic mentor of Martin Luther King[6], A. Philip Randolph was mentored by a Jesuit named John Lafarge Jr.[7]

The plot thickens. In the well known Godfather Trilogy, we have the Immobiliare banking scandal as the base plot of The Godfather Part III. This movie was inspired by real life events in the Banco Ambrosiano scandal. Here we have, Archbishop Paul Marcinkus, the “governor of the Vatican Bank, who was indicted over his involvement with the collapse of the scandal-ridden Banco Ambrosiano”[8], Pope Paul VI and none other than Martin Luther King.[9] EJP points out,

“Roy Wilkins, executive secretary of the NAACP  [was] later awarded St. Louis University’s “Sword of Ignatius Loyola” in 1976[10][WOW!!!]…SMOM Henry R. Luce’s Time magazine named King “Man of the Year” in 1964 on orders from Cardinal Spellman, furthering Rome’s Civil Rights agitation.”[11]

So if MLK was controlled by the Vatican why was he assassinated? Because he began to oppose the Vietnam War.[12] The Vietnam War was Cardinal Spellman’s War (Spelly’s War).[13] Moreover, Theodore Hesburgh, educated by the Jesuits at the first Jesuit University ever established, Pontifical Gregorian University,[14] was an influential member of the Civil Rights Commission. Later, he became Chairman.[15]

In John Henrik Clarke’s A Great and Mighty Walk, Clarke pointed out that Gandhi’s Passive Resistance philosophy was a strategy and not a way of life.[16] Clarke pointed out that Martin Luther King patterned his movement after Gandhi. Clarke complained, “A strategy is never a way of life.”[17] In his other lectures and in his dialogue with Cornell West,[18] Clarke maintained his life-long commitment to Black Nationalism.

Black Scholar, Roy L. Brooks’ Integration or Separation?[19] also provided  criticisms of Integration. In Chapter 6, “Why Integration Has Failed”, Brooks says,

“When all the probing, postulating, and proselytizing about the American race problem comes to an end, one thing will remain clear beyond peradventure: the traditional liberal solution to the problem-racial integration-is not the right answer for most African Americans. Four decades after the Brown V. Board of Education, millions of African Americans are still not receiving adequate education and emotional support in our public schools, are still not living in safe and decent neighborhoods, are still not working to their full economic and emotional potential, and are still not able to protect their social and economic interests through the political process…[Integration] has encouraged and facilitated an exodus of talented individuals and stable families from African American communities during the post-1960s, and thereby depleted these communities of human and economic resources. This flight to integration has left millions of African Americans in the nation’s inner cities not just poor but poverty stricken.”[20]

Brooks sees Racism not simply as an attitude but “power to systematically exclude Whites from opportunities and rewards in major economic, cultural, and political institutions.”[21] Brooks complained that Integration has not changed the attitude of Whites towards Blacks. He complains that “middle class African Americans, despite all their socioeconomic success, must endure…racial slurs..the battle flag of the old Confederacy flying over several state capitols”, etc.[22]

Brooks, directly acknowledged my view of Separate Nations and provided arguments against it:

1. The Nationalist groups that have existed in the past promoted their Nationalism to the expense of other races. Thus Black Muslim theology has tended to promote Black Liberation with the goal of the destruction of the White race.[23]

2. Attempts to take African Americans back to Africa have failed. Brooks mentioned the failed 1822 experiment in Liberia. Brooks wants to make sure Democratic ideals and modern thought is transferred with the Blacks and that has not happened in the past.

3. “Domestic Migration or territorial separation, has also been a failure…This conclusion is well illustrated by the historical record of ‘Black Towns’…which were not self sufficient…Jim Crow prevented the residents from totally insulating themselves from White oppression…most Black towns faded away because their economies were hopelessly dependent upon outside capital, lacked diversification (most depended on a single crop such as cotton), and, like hundreds of other small towns across America, they fell victim to industrialization-structural changes in the larger economy that moved jobs from the farms to the factories.”

4. Finally Brooks believes that Black Nationalism has created a detrimental and destructive hostility towards anything European. He calls this “Racial Romanticism.”[24]

I would reply that all of these objections are satisfied in the solution that Eric Jon Phelps has presented, namely, that the United States reserve a handful of States to be populated by Blacks and other necessary persons such as inter-racial spouses. The States would constitute a new nation, independent of the United States. This movement should be based upon the origin of Races, and Racial and Linguistic Separation found in Genesis 9-11. In this construction the races and languages are something that God created according to his good pleasure, as he is a God who loves distinction and variety. He is not a distinction-less monad. Thus any preaching of racial or genetic purification by the elimination of a certain race would be absent and strongly condemned.  Secondly, this would not involve an exodus back to Africa but would involve a population shift within a social structure already replete with Black Democratic Government Representatives. Thirdly, this solution would remove the Blacks from being under a White government and thus remove the ability of any Whites to oppress or hold Blacks back. On the contrary, and fourthly, the Whites would be giving up huge industrialized States ready to be used by the Blacks, thus removing the detrimental effects of Black Racial Romanticism.

The 1923 population exchange between Greece and Turkey could serve as a precedent and a model for future actions.

Black Racial Solutions Translate Into the Destruction of Protestant Christianity

One of the primary reasons why I so strongly advocate this Separation is to restore my Christian Patriarchal Culture. The presence of the Blacks here has been nothing short of the perfect opportunity for the Jesuits to destroy the Protestant Christian Patriarchal way of life.[25]  I have in the recent past written articles arguing that our Western Governments, under the leading of the Jesuits, have created a Secularist Consciousness pursuant unto the destruction of the Protestant Religion.[26] Brooks gives us a perfectly good example of how our Universities do things like this:

“Feagin and Vera believe that White racism can be surgically removed from the body politic without killing the patient. They offer an elaborate set of proposals designed to create ‘a new socio-racial rationality’ a mutually agreeable social contract that ensures full racial justice and harmony. To reconstruct society along these egalitarian lines, the authors propose that we educate or re-educate the majority of Whites in U.S. racial and ethnic history, a task to which Feagin has committed his entire professional life.”[27]

Brooks doubts that Feagin and Vera will succeed.[28]

Black Poverty

A basic education is the mot obvious condition to obtain a decent job with a living wage. However, according to the Trends in High School Dropout and Completion Rates in the United States: 1972–2009 published by the U.S. Department of Education, October 2011, Blacks drop out of High School at double the rate of Whites. The rate is 2.4% for Whites, 4.8% for Blacks.[29] According to a New York Times article,

“On any given day, about one in every 10 young male high school dropouts is in jail or juvenile detention, compared with one in 35 young male high school graduates, according to a new study of the effects of dropping out of school in an America where demand for low-skill workers is plunging. The picture is even bleaker for African-Americans, with nearly one in four young Black male dropouts incarcerated or otherwise institutionalized on an average day, the study said.”[30]

The Black rate was at least 3 times that of Asian, White or Hispanic.

Teen Pregnancy, by Lisa Shuger, of The National Campaign says,

“Nearly one-third of teen girls who have dropped out of high school cite early pregnancy or parenthood as a key reason. Only 40 percent of teen moms finish high school, and less than two percent of teen mothers (those who have a baby before age 18) finish college by age 30.”

And who has the highest rates of teen pregnancy? According to the Adolescent pregnancy trends and demographics of the The National Center for Biotechnology Information Site,

“In the United States today, 9% of women aged 15 to 19 years become pregnant each year: 5% give birth, 3% have induced abortions, and 1% have miscarriages or stillbirths–rates much higher than those in other developed countries. Rates are highest among those who are older, from disadvantaged backgrounds, Black or Hispanic, married, have much older male partners, and live in southern states.”[31]

However, what keeps the majority of Blacks from graduating high school is that they simply don’t like it and they don’t have stable parental coercion to stay the course. I  grew up listening to rap music and these guys flatly tell you why they don’t want to go to school or the general sentiment among young Blacks. See 5:30-6:50 of Outkast’s song “Git Up, Git Out”,

Many will say that the solution is money. Throw more money at the problem. Here is the problem with that: According to the OECD, Pisa 2009 report, The United States ranks 17th in education in the world, yet our expenditures are ranked 7th in the world. Moreover, the nations ahead of us in Educational performance such as China, Japan and Korea, spend much less than we do on education. According to the OECD Family database’s report, PF1.2: Public spending on education[32], we find that the US is spending about $10, 000 a year for “Public expenditure on primary, secondary and tertiary education, per student”, while Japan is spending about $6, 500 (adjusted for US $) and Korea a little more than $4, 000! Moreover, this number for the US is simply an average among all peoples and races. This does not account for the special attention given to Blacks. According to the US Department of Commerce’s Public Education Finances: 2010, we read in the “Per Pupil Amounts for Current Spending of Public Elementary-Secondary School Systems by State: 2009–2010” section, that the Schools in the District of Colombia, which said District houses the largest Black population in America, spends $18, 667 per pupil; the largest expenditure in the Nation![33] The state with the second largest per pupil expenditure is New York. Guess what, they house the second largest Black population in the Nation (Assuming that D.C. is in the Nation which itself is its own scandal which would technically make NY the largest Black population). So obviously money is not the problem. The problem is moral and spiritual.

Within the Black community, the phrase, “acting White”[34] is a painful criticism made by Blacks against other Blacks who wish to do well in school. This was the subject of  Weighing the “Burden of ‘Acting White'”: Are There Race Differences in Attitudes toward Education? by Philip J. Cook and Jens Ludwig. The thinking of the young Black man is that he is living in the White man’s system. Therefore, any effort put forth by him is simply aiding and abetting a system of historical oppression, as Outkast told us in the referenced video above.

This is just one more reason why I advocate that the Blacks have their own land here governed separately from the White man. Adding to this is the 72 percent illegitimacy among Black families.[35] The Black family has been almost annihilated. This has not always been so among the Black communities. The advent of the crack-cocaine epidemic in the 1980’s was the occasion for the complete dismantling of Black culture. Jared Taylor says, “And unlike the 1970s when two thirds of the teenage mothers were married, in 1988, two thirds of the teenage mothers were single.”[36] And just as a reminder, this was brought upon these people by our own Yankee Government as I demonstrated in another article.[37] This is yet another reason why, for the benefit of both races, we should separate nationally, not simply segregate. These broken, single-female-bread winner homes cannot support a family and thus the poverty multiplies, the welfare multiplies, the crime multiplies. What happened? Taylor points out, “From 1890 to as late as 1950, Black women were more likely than White women to be married.”[38]  So what happened? Babylonianism happened! Forced  Integration! Moreover, the Black thug-life mentality, brought to us by our Illuminist Corporate owned Record Labels, demonizes a life of work and glorifies a life of hustling, drug dealing, pimping and violence. Popular Rapper, Master P, says in his “Let’s Get Em”,

“But I cant be stopped- Cause real TRU niggas make their money from slangin rocks”

Popular Rapper Young Bleed in his “An Offer U Can’t Refuse ” says,

“hey give me weed for a G and let me mob-and fuck what you talkin about playa
cause I do my job-I never knew nothin but hustling-struggle and strive just to stay alive
never could keep a nine to five”.[39]

Popular Rapper Cee-Lo, in “Git Up, Git Out” from the Southern Rap Classic Southernplayalisticadillacmuzik, an album I had virtually memorized in my teens and early twenties, said,

“I know you know but I’m gon say this to you I…Get high but I don’t get too high-
So what’s the limit ‘posed to be?- That must be why you can’t get your ass up out the bed before three- You need to git up, git out, cut that bullshit out-Ain’t you sick and tired of having to do without-And what up with all these questions?-As act as though you know somethin I don’t. Do you have any suggestions?-Cuz every job I get is cruel and demeanin-Sick of takin trash out and toilet bowl cleanin-But I’m also sick and tired of struggling-I never ever thought I’d have resort to drug smugglin”.[40]

Could it be that the Corporate Illuminists involved with the glorifying of crime in the Rap Industry are doing a favor for their fellow Corporate Illuminists who have invested in the Privately Owned, Prison Industrial Complex that according to the CNBC Documentary Billions Behind Bars[41], spends more than 74 Billion Dollars a year on Corrections?  I believe so, and it is because of this that I espouse EJP’s  solution to the Black problem here and moreover, I advocate the subsequent Secession of States, the restoration of Protestant Theocracies which will in turn punish the usurious sins of our Corporate Masters.


[2] See X’s interview with Eleanor Fischer, 1961: http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=tFVFA6BryaA

[4] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Du_Bois_with_Mao_Tse_Tung_1959B.jpg; See also
W. E. B. Du Bois: The Fight for Equality and the American Century, 1919-1963, David Levering Lewis, (New York: Henry Holt and Company, 2000).

[6] Mr. Black Labor: The Story of A. Philip Randolph; Father of the Civil
Rights Movement
, Daniel S. Davis, (New York: E. P. Dutton & Co., 1972).- From Vatican Assassins III, 2011, p. 1453

[11] VA III, 1455

[13] The American Pope, John Cooney, (New York: Times Books, 1984).; VA III, p. 1334

[17] 1:08:40

[19] Roy L. Brooks, Integration or Separation (HarvardUniversity Press: Cambridge, Mass. 1996)

[20] Ibid., 104-106

[21] Ibid., 107

[22] Ibid., 108-109

[23] Ibid., 120

[24] Ibid., 123

[27] Integration or Separation., 114

[28] Ibid., 115

[30] Sam Dillon, Study Finds High Rate of Imprisonment Among Dropouts: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/09/education/09dropout.html?_r=0

[36] Paved with Good Intentions, 295; he also references Felicity Barringer, “After Long Decline, Teen Births Are Up,” New York Times (August 17, 1990), p. A14.

[38] Paved with Good Intentions, 297. He also references, Bill Mcallister, “To be Young, Male and Black,” The Washington Post (December 28, 1989), p. A1

The Conspiracy of Failed Integration Friday, Oct 26 2012 

[1]Jared Taylor’s  Paved with Good Intentions[2], was a real eye-opener. Taylor says,

“In 1954, when the Supreme Court heard the case of Brown v. Board of Education, no one asked for or dreamed of forced integration, racial quotas, or busing. The main plaintiff in the case, Oliver Brown, was not an activist. All he wanted was to send his daughter, Linda, to the white school just seven blocks away, rather than across town to the ‘colored’ school.”[3]

However, as Taylor points out, “The Civil Rights Act [1964]…did not require schools to move students around to achieve racial balance. Once again, this did not stop the nations’ courts from making school districts do exactly the opposite of what Congress intended. The original idea behind school desegregation was that it was impossible for schools to be ‘separate but equal.’”

“In Hobson vs Hanson (1967), and in response to persuasive expert opinion. Judge  J. Skelly Wright stated “Racially and  socially homogeneous schools damage the minds and spirits of  all children.”[4] On the contrary,  when we examine documents from the OECD, PISA 2009 Database we find that the top performers in Education are highly homogenous nations, such as China, Japan and Korea.[5]

The justification for forced busing leaned on this idea that black children simply could not learn unless they were sitting next to white children. What we have come to realize is that the dominate result of integration is not an educated black demographic but a dumbed down, savagized and negro-ized white demographic. I currently have a friend who teaches in the Public School system, and is completely exasperated with the behavior of black children and their destructive influences on white children [Could this be the real purpose for integration?].

This comes at no surprise because originally neither the black community nor the white community approved of forced busing and forced racial balancing in public schools.  Taylor points out, “A Gallup Poll taken [in 1973]…showed that only 4 percent of whites and 9 percent of blacks approved of busing.”[6] [See also the image above]

I also suggest to the reader  Green v. County School Board of New Kent County 1968.  Blacks and whites wanted their own schools for their own people and this case forced integration to happen. Forced busing was enforced in Swann v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of Education 1971. Black parent activist of Boston’s Citywide Educational Coalition, Loretta Roach, argued that forced busing had harmed both blacks and whites. She also pointed out the general failure of the integration policy. She pointed out that the white middle class moved out of the city to avoid the full weight of the integrationist influence which was a disguised version of Prima Nocte.

Moreover, the forced busing has accomplished the exact opposite goal it was supposedly created for. Taylor points out,

“In June 1989 there were 3,436 black children waiting to get into these magnet schools [Kansas City, MO], but to admit them would tip the ratio past the 60:40 limit. The school board virtually  begged whites to enroll, but only 79 accepted. This meant a few more blacks could be taken, but it still left thousands out in the cold. There were places in magnet schools going begging, but since  integration was seen as more important than education, black children could not have them. 757 Just as Oliver Brown did in 1954, black parents filed suit because they were being kept out of good neighborhood schools on account of their race.”[7]

There is no surprise that we have the same problem today.[8]Taylor points out that Judges have desperately attempted to improve these schools in order to draw in more white students at the expense of insane and illegal property taxes. But as we have seen since the African Slave Trade-Jesuit Race War conspiracy the Race War against the White Protestants takes precedence over all, and the taxes have passed. Hypocrites!

Not only has the Integrationist Yankee Race War shown itself hypocritical, its alleged primary goal, the educational improvement of the black race pursuant unto racial equality, has failed. In the 2002, Beyond the Color Line: New Perspectives on Race and Ethnicity in America by the Thernstroms we read,

“The debate over desegregation and achievement has continued unabated since the early 1970s, when the first evidence appeared that desegregation was not improving black achievement. In spite of the claims and expectations of many supporters of desegregation during the 1960s, and in spite of the existence of comprehensive and well-funded desegregation plans in many school districts throughout the nation, there is not a single example in the published literature of a comprehensive racial balance plan that has improved black achievement or that has reduced the black-white achievement gap significantly.”[9]

This is why the dumbing down of our educational system is so important to our Yankee Federalist Government.  In order to meet requirements on standardized tests, many Schools throughout the country have resorted to all-out cheating according to a Washington Post article, Ed Dept. seeks ways to stem cheating on standardized tests by Valerie Strauss.[10]

Could it be that the purpose of Integration and racial equality was not the long term benefit of the blacks but the long term detriment of the whites? Could it be that our government knows that the blacks will never be equals with whites and knows that integration has failed and never intended it to succeed? Could it be that that White Anglo Protestant Robert Lewis Dabney was correct when he said in his Defence of Virginia,

“But while we believe that “God made of one blood all nations of men to dwell under the whole heavens,” we know that the African has become, according to a well-known law of natural history, by the manifold influences of the ages, a different, fixed species of the race, separated from the white man by traits bodily, mental and moral, almost as rigid and permanent as those of genus. Hence the offspring of an amalgamation must be a hybrid race, stamped with all the feebleness of the hybrid, and incapable of the career of civilization and glory as an independent race. And this apparently is the destiny which our conquerors have in view.[Eminem pic used in a spiritual sense] If indeed they can mix the blood of the heroes of Manassas with this vile stream from the fens of Africa, then they will never again have occasion to tremble before the righteous resistance of Virginian freemen; but will have a race supple and vile enough to fill that position of political subjection, which they desire to fix on the South.”[11]

?

I think so. My white Southern reader, your government does not want you to identify with your Ancestors. It doesn’t want you to read their history and understand that they were being murdered by the hundreds of thousands in Europe before they fled here to North America.  It doesn’t want you to know that later they were murdered, raped and pillaged for decades under this Yankee Government.[12] It doesn’t want you to know that they resisted the African Slave Trade only to have their actions repealed over and over again by a British, Jesuit-Controlled Government.  [13] It doesn’t want you to know that the South never received remuneration for their slaves as every other major slave holding nation received after Abolition.[14] It doesn’t want you to know that the Confederate Army was led by two traitors named Jefferson Davis and Robert E. Lee.[15] It doesn’t want you to know that Robert E. Lee was Court-Martialed. It doesn’t want you to know that the greatest Confederate General, Stonewall Jackson, was assassinated, thus thwarting another of the many opportunities he had to annihilate the Union Army.[16] And it sure doesn’t want you to know that the Multi-Cultural Integration that you experience today was forced on your parents or your grandparents at the end of a Bayonet.

No!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! You are to be Negroized. Your ancestors demonized and their history twisted and scarred, all for one purpose: To turn the greatest Protestant lands, the most powerful enemy of the Roman Catholic Church, into an impoverished, negroized, atheistized, savagized body of confused ignorant political slaves. You see, if you identified with your ancestors, you would find out who runs your government right now: The Jesuits! You would read the history of our Revolution and the books that defended it like Samuel Rutherford’s Lex Rex who says of all tyrant governments who establish their rule by aggression and blood:

“Every conquest made by violence may be dissolved by violence.”[17]

The 1964 Civil Rights Act was not meant to help blacks long term. It was meant to destroy the whites long term. Thomas Woods pointed out, “The percentage of blacks employed as managers and administrators was no higher in 1967 than it had  been in 1964 or 1960.” [18]

The Civil Rights Act is inapplicable when applied to employment. Senators Joseph Clark and Clifford Case said,

“any deliberate attempt to maintain a racial balance, whatever such a balance may be, would involve a violation of [the legislation] because maintaining such a balance would require an employer to hire or refuse to hire on the basis of race.”[19]

Do we see the inhuman contradictions woven into Communism? These policies run against the very grain of God’s design for mankind. And I’m sure that as soon as I say this your Hollywood programming kicks in. You are going to think of Rollie Wedge, the Klansman in the movie The Chamber who says similar things as I am. This is how the establishment controls you.

Take note of the membership for the Council on Foreign Relations.  The membership roster present and past reads like a who’s who from the media world. There are actors, like Angelina Jolie, George Clooney, and Warren Beatty. There are Hollywood directors like Ron Silver, and Major Television Network Journalists and Executives are copious.

What we have here is a fully complicit conspiracy against the ancient ways of life and especially, the Patriarchal Protestant Christian Culture. It is no secret that Hollywood does everything it can to glorify criminals and especially the Mafia. Seeing that the Five Families are all Roman Catholic I find it hard to believe that Jews are in control of Hollywood though many Jews play vital roles in that wicked industry. See Eric Holmberg’s Hell’s Bells [20] and  Dr. Jason D. Kovar’s Hollywood Unmasked. [21]


[1] American Renaissance, Vol. 19 No. 2 February 2008, “Integration Has Failed (Part I)”, http://www.amren.com/ar/pdfs/2008/200802ar.pdf

[2] Jared Taylor, Paved with Good Intentions, (Caroll & Graf Publishers, Inc., New York, 1992)

[3] Ibid., 202

[4] Ralph Scott, “Mandated School Busing and Student Learning”; available at  http://www.unz.org/Pub/MankindQuarterly-1986q3-00045

[6] Reference is: “Sobel, Quotas and Affirmative Action, p. 99”

[7] Paved with Good Intentions, 205

[9] Abigail Thernstrom and Stephan Thernstrom, Beyond the Color Line: New Perspectives on Race and Ethnicity in America, pg. 239; Available at the Hoover Institution Stanford University Site: http://media.hoover.org/sites/default/files/documents/0817998721_219.pdf

[15] Eric Phelp, Vatican Assassins III, Chapter 26

[16] Ibid.

Is Drake Teaching the Heresy of Joachim of Flora? Tuesday, Oct 23 2012 

Richard Muller says in his PRRD, Vol. 4 page 35,

“Joachim appears to have proposed a divine Triad of persons who together constitute one God, denying the identity of the persons as Lombard had defined it ‘One supreme reality (res),’ and instead insisting on a generic unity…Joachim opposed Lombard’s teaching on the ground that it introduced a quaternity…Joachim’s…view…was unmistakably tritheistic, inasmuch as it removed all hint of quaternity by defining the unity of divine essence as generic rather than numerically.”

First, I reject, “a divine Triad of persons who together constitute one God”. I affirm that only the Father is the One God. Joachim is heretical by affirming three persons that constitute God-ness which pertains to nature while affirming three numeric divine natures. This is the fundamental mistake in the West: seeing God-ness as something that pertains to nature rather than the Hypostasis of the Father.

Now Muller does mention an issue on page 37 that needs to be addressed. The materialism of both East and West becomes evident in their Theology Proper. Recently, I have been discussing detailed issues concerning the Eternal Generation at Articuli Fidei and a singular issue arises: If the Son emanates out of the Father, did the Father lose a part of himself that subsequently (whether pertaining to logical or temporal sequence is irrelevant here) constituted the Son?

As a Scripturalist, I follow Dr. Clark’s system of Philosophy and Theology Proper which adhered to a form of Christian Platonism, where the Divine Ideas of Plato become the Ideas and Attributes of God and subsist within him. These Ideas then constitute his being at a fundamental level. They are not created representations of God or his individual attributes. They are God at some fundamental level.   Dr. Clark said in expositing Plato:  “A single body cannot be in several places at once, but any number of men throughout the world can have the same thought at the same time; and if, as is surely the case, the Ideas are more of the nature of thought than of body, the objection is convicted of a false analogy.” Gordon H. Clark, Thales to Dewey (Unicoi, Tennesse.: The Trinity Foundation, 1957,  Fourth edition 2000), 78.

Here then is my solution to the Eternal Generation: When I communicate an idea that I affirm myself as constitutive of my own personhood, to another person, and the other person believes it and therefore becomes personally constituted by this thought as well, I lose nothing of myself or my thought in doing so. This is the nature of thought (two people can have the same thought at the same time without losing anything of themselves, per Clark) as opposed to the nature of physical composition and the transference of physical substance from one subject to another. This is analogous (And the analogy that I am appealing to is the analogy of proportion, not the analogy of proportionality) to the eternal generation of the Son.

Acts 20:28 ; Whose Blood? Tuesday, Oct 23 2012 

Act 20:28  Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood. kjv

Act 20:28  Take heed unto yourselves, and to all the flock, in which the Holy Spirit hath made you bishops, to feed the church of the Lord which he purchased with his own blood. Asv

If it is Jesus’ blood that was shed does this verse not affirm Jesus to be the One God?

Ans. What is usually left out of the discussion, though Shedd mentions this, is that there are an even number of manuscripts that read “Church of the Lord (kyrios) “, and not “Church of God (theos).” The manuscripts are divided evenly here. In the ASV version of the Bible, Acts 20:28 does not contain the reading, “Church of God” but has “Church of the Lord.”

Wee see this translation very early in the wriings of the Church Fathers, such as St. Irenaeus, Against Heresies (Book III, Chapter 14)

“2. But that Paul taught with simplicity what he knew, not only to those who were [employed] with him, but to those that heard him, he does himself make manifest. For when the bishops and presbyters who came from Ephesus and the other cities adjoining had assembled in Miletus, since he was himself hastening to Jerusalem to observe Pentecost, after testifying many things to them, and declaring what must happen to him at Jerusalem, he added: I know that you shall see my face no more. Therefore I take you to record this day, that I am pure from the blood of all. For I have not shunned to declare unto you all the counsel of God. Take heed, therefore, both to yourselves, and to all the flock over which the Holy Ghost has placed you as bishops, to rule the Church of the Lord, which He has acquired for Himself through His own blood.”

Samuel Clarke says in his Scripture Doctrine of the Trinity point 538, page 86,

“538. Acts  XX, 28. To feed the Church of God, which He hath purchafed with his own Blood.

In This place, the word, God may be underftood  of Christ, in like manner as in Joh, i, 1 . But many Antient Copies read it, and the moll antient Fathers cite it, The Church of the LORD. Or, if the word, God be underftood to mean the Father; then, his own Blood muft fignify, the Blood of his own  Son. Or elfe, (which feems the molt natural Interpretation of all,) if God in this place fignifies the Father, the following words, hath purchafed with his own Blood may be underftood of Christ, in the fame manner of Speaking that St. John in his first Epistle frequently uses, and particularly i Joh. iii, 5, Ye know that HE was manifested to take away our Sins; and in HIM is no Sin: Where the Words, He, and

Him, muft of neceffity  be referred to Christ, though without any antecedent mention of him, the Father only having been before fpoken of, ver, i, Behold what manner of Love the FATHER hath beftowed upon us, &c. And the fame feems to be the true conftruction of thofe other words, ver, 16, Hereby perceive we the Love of GOD, [fee N° 2.93,] becaufe  …HE (viz. Chrift) laid down his Life for us: Which St Paul expreffes more fully, Rom, v, 8,  GOD commendeth his Love towards us, in that while we were yet Sinners, CHRIST died for us.”

Is the One God a Person or a Monad? In Samuel Clarke Monday, Oct 22 2012 

This is Dr. Samuel Clarke’s letter to Mr. R.M. regarding monotheism from Clarke’s Works, Volume 4, pages 365-368:

Isa. 44:6 Besides me, there is no God. Ver. 8 Is there any God, besides Me? yea, there is no God, I know not any. (the Word Me, is personal)

Isa. 45:5 I am the Lord, and there is None else, there is no God besides me. Ver. 18 I am the Lord, and there is none else. Ver. 22 I am God, and there is none else; (not nullum aliud, no other being only, but, Nullus alius, No other Person; no other whatsoever; no other, absolutely; either of the same, or of any other essence)

Isa. 40:25 To whome then will you liken Me, or shall I be equal? saith the Holy One. (the Words are all personal)

Isa. 46:5 To whom will you liken Me, and make Me equal, and compare Me, that we may be like? Ver. 9 I am God, and there is none else; I am God, and there is none like Me. (the Words again are all personal)

Deut. 32:39 I, even I, am He; and there is no God (He does not say, except it be in the same essence; but absolutely, there is no God) with Me.

Isa. 43:10 Before Me there was no God formed, neither shall there be any after Me. (the Words are still always personal).

2 Kings 19:19 Thou art the Lord God, even Thou only. (Tu solus; not thou and other persons in thy essence; but, Thou only.)

Nehm. 9:6 Thou, even Thou art Lord alone. (Personal)

Psalm 83:18 Thou, whose Name alone is Jehovah. (Personal again)

Psalm 86:10 Thou art Great, Thou (personally) art God alone.

Isa. 61:4 I am the Lord, the First and with the Last; I am He; (not, illud, that being only; but,ille, that person)

Isa. 64:6 I am the First, (not, Primum, the first Being only; but, Primus, the First Person) and I am the last; and besides me, (not only, besides my substance or essence; but besides me, personally,) there is no God.

Joel 2:27 I am the Lord thy God; (not, thy infinite and perfect essence or substance; but, thy Supreme Lord and Governor, the Object of they worship) and None else. (This and the like texts, demonstratively prove the Word God to be a personal and relative Title)

…. Now, I observe, in every one of these texts, God expressly declares, not, that there is no other BEING only; but also that, absolutely and without exception, there is no OTHER, no other Person, no other whatsoever, either in the same or in any other Substance, to whom His attributes and Worship belong; Just as St. Paul says, I Cor. 8:6To us there is but one God, even the Father. Consequently, if the attributes and Worship of the Father (which worship is always personal) do indeed (as you suppose) belong also to the Son of God; it follows inevitably and demonstratively, that the Son of God can in no sense be a distinct person from the Father, either in the same or in any other essence; but that he must be merely another Name for the Father himself. He must be, not only of the same substance; but he must be he himself, he must be that very individual person, of whom it is said in all your texts that Him only, (not, his substance only, but his personal only, HIM only) shall thou serve. …”

Thank you to Mark Xu

Granville Sharp Rule Wednesday, Oct 17 2012 

David Waltz has written a reference post on the GSP here: http://articulifidei.blogspot.com/2012/10/granville-sharp-his-six-rules-of-grammar.html

Who is God our Savior? Tuesday, Oct 16 2012 

 Tit 3:4 But after that the kindness and love of God our Saviour toward man appeared, Tit 3:5  Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost; Tit 3:6  Which he shed on us abundantly through Jesus Christ our Saviour

Some object:

Titus 2:13 Looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ;

2 Peter 1: 1 Simon Peter, a servant and an apostle of Jesus Christ, to them that have obtained like precious faith with us through the righteousness of God and our Saviour Jesus Christ

These equate God with Jesus Christ!

Ans. No they don’t. There is a conjunction in both instances. The reason why they are coupled with the title “savior” is because the salvation of the Father comes through the Son.

Samuel Clarke, Scripture Doctrine of the Trinity page 36:

“1 Tim i…2 From God our Father, and Jesus Christ our Lord.
…ii ; 3, 5. . This is good and acceptable in the Sight of GOD our Saviour, —. For there is One GOD; and One Mediatour between GOD and Men, the Man Christ Jesus.

…Note, In This Epistle, and That to Titus God the Father is frequently stiled God our Saviour ; and sometimes in the very fame Sentence, wherein he is joined with, and distinguished from, our Lord Jesus Christ : As ch. i, 1 , God our Saviour , and the Lord
Jesus Christ:  And Tit. 3; 4, 6, God our Saviour,—through Jesus Christ our Saviour.”

http://archive.org/stream/scripturedoctrin00clar#page/36/mode/2up

Samuel Rutherford on the Toleration of Jews Saturday, Oct 13 2012 

The following is from Rutherford’s Free Disputation (1649),

“Answ. Paul bids receive them, ergo, he bids tolerate them all together, it follows not, he will have them informed that there is no such divine law that presseth them, and so a moral toleration of not refuting their error is denied to them.

2. He bids receive them in a practice in itself, for that time, indifferent (for 1 Cor.8.8. Neither if they did eat, were they the better, nor if they did not eat, were they the worse) but only erroneous in the manner, because of the twilight and sparklings of the light of the Gospel not fully promulgated to the Jews. Will it follow that the Jews should be tolerated still, and perpetually to circumcise and keep the ceremonial law, and to teach others so to do? for Libertines contend for a constant and perpetual toleration of all Jewish and sinful practices.” (pg. 100)

“To tolerate Jews openly blaspheming Christ, or to receive them in the Common-Wealth, cannot be allowed, or to suffer them to have Synagogues, in regard they blaspheme the God we are in Covenant with, and do no less deny him, than Goliah and Senacharib did, 2. But simply seduced Jews are to be instructed, for there is a peculiar prophecy touching the Jews, Rom. 11. Jer. 50. 5 ,6. That they shall be brought in to know Christ, and believe in him.” (pg. 316)

It should therefore be a general rule NOT to accept Jews in a Christian Commonwealth.

Wonder why the Jesuits are not coming out against HHS Mandate? Could it be because they had a hand in writing it? Saturday, Oct 13 2012 

http://www.catholicculture.org/news/headlines/index.cfm?storyid=15859

Next Page »

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 171 other followers

%d bloggers like this: