Category: Ethnic considerations

The ancient Hebrews refused to mention the name of God out of a sense of worship and a threat of being destroyed for Blasphemy. Later Hebrew Scribes would change pens after writing the name of God and often there would be little pots of water where they would wash their hands after writing the Holy name.

After thinking about that I concluding that in our culture we worship black people because we…,

1.) Refuse to mention his name for fear of being destroyed and out of a sense that to do so is blasphemy.

2.) practice quotas, set asides, and affirmative action thus revealing that the black man, like a god, is to be preferred among us.

3.) refuse to accept the general truths about black culture, preferring instead to lie to ourselves so as to protect the reputation of our god.

4.) are seeking to find a kind of ethnic self-atonement to relieve us from our guilt for the sins that we have been convinced — rightly or wrongly — belong to WASP’s

Imagine our pagan culture as a totem pole. What a Totem pole communicated is the degree of being. The more being one has the higher on the totem pole one was represented because the greater one was. More being … more god-likeness. On the American cultural totem pole Biblical Christian white males are at the bottom of the totem pole and cultural Marxist black leadership (almost a tautology) are on the top of the totem pole — there to be worshiped. In between in an ascending order are the christian minorities (putatively slandered by their own people by being accused of being Uncle Toms or Oreos), feminists, homosexuals, and other non-Christian minorities.

Now ask yourself who built the Totem pole. Cui bono (Who benefits) the most from the planned overthrow of Historic WASP Christian culture?

Our culture will become third world until we leave both our pagan notion of being AND our love affair with non-Christian faiths and alien peoples.

The term Jew is one that can muddy the waters a bit. Jew in the NT is mostly used geographically rather than referring to a specific nation. The Israelites were a distinct group of people with a distinct heredity. You are correct that non-Israelites could keep the covenant, celebrate Passover, and be circumcised. This did not make them Israelites. They were still recognized as a distinct group of people even after circumcision (Num. 11:4, Neh. 13:3). This meant that they were still ineligible for becoming civil magistrates (Deut. 1:13-16, 17:15, 2 Sam. 5:1, 1 Chr. 11:1) and permanently owning property (Lev. 25).

David Opperman

If one were to exert the same exact amount of air through different instruments one would not expect to hear the exact same sound because the instruments have been created and designed to sound differently regardless whether or not the air that animates them is exactly the same. Even so, different peoples can believe the exact same thing but because they have been created and designed to “sound differently” they will not produce the same exact culture. If music is sound poured over instrumentation then why can not culture be theology poured over ethnicity?

Why would we ever discount the reality that God really does love diversity and as such he creates a symphonic band of cultures, each sharing the same theology but each producing a unique sound in a wonderful harmony for His glory?

Does God desire us all to be Trombones?

Should we desire to change the metaphor we could ask what would happen if one took the same exact water and poured it over different citrus fruits. Obviously the reality of the shared water would not make all the juice to taste the same. Just so, different [ethnicities] can have the same exact theology poured over them and that will not mean that all those [ethnicities] will be the same exact juice (culture) because they were not created to be the same exact citrus fruit.

Why would we ever discount the reality that God really does love diversity and as such he creates varying citrus fruits, each sharing the same theology but each producing a unique flavor consistent with their created intent.

Does God desire us all to be Lemons?

Maedoc ap Opwain Gwynedd was a Norseman who settled in Wales and then made his way across the North Atlantic and was lost at sea. His story is woven into Welsh and Icelandic chronicles, often told as tragic tale of lost potential. But there’s an alternate ending as well. When European Settlers in North America in the 16th century first began to ask the Cherokee people about their history, one story was of a white skinned people who preceded them. They were large, fierce men with golden grain instead of hair. They called them the Welsh tribe of the Vi-Kings. The Cherokee claimed descent from white forebears who crossed the great water. A legend like this among the Cherokee would likely have gone unnoticed, except that in Wales there are tales of this same Viking prince named Madeoc ap Owain Gwynedd who sailed west and discovered land sometime after the year 1100.

There’s sufficient evidence for some to conclude that Maedoc’s company landed in Mobil Bay and made their way to Tennessee, thus meeting the Cherokee and thus accounting for several mysterious stone Forts in Chattanooga and Manchester. The reconstructed account theorizes that the band continued through the Ohio Valley to Louisville where they intermarried with the Mandan-Sioux and moved up the Missouri River to the Dakotas.

If the Cherokee legends and Welsh and Viking tales were the only support for this fantastic story, and even if we had a few stone forts that we couldn’t explain, the story probably wouldn’t have had enough strength to survive the centuries. However, in his Principle Navigations of 1589, Richard Hakluyt offered the story of Maedoc in support of English territorial claims to the New World….

Additional support for the legend is found in the writings of American artist George Caitlin. While drawing pictures of the Mandan Sioux in N. Missouri in the 19th century, Caitlin discovered Indians w/ uncommonly pale complexions and blue eyes. He believed that they may indeed be the descendants of the legendary Viking / Welsh colony of Maedoc and argued for the case in his famous book North American Indians written in 1841.

Dr. George Grant
Notes From His Lectures on Christendom
Lecture 19

http://www.politico.com/blogs/joshgerstein/0311/Eric_Holder_Black_Panther_case_focus_demeans_my_people.html

“The Attorney General seemed to take personal offense at a comment (Congressman) Culberson read in which former Democratic activist Bartle Bull called the (Black Panther voter intimidation) incident (in Philadelphia) the most serious act of voter intimidation he had witnessed in his career.

“Think about that,” Holder said. “When you compare what people endured in the South in the 60s to try to get the right to vote for African Americans, to compare what people subjected to that with what happened in Philadelphia, which was inappropriate….to describe it in those terms I think does a great disservice to people who put their lives on the line for my people,” said Holder, who is black”

Re-read HOlder’s “my people” statement above. Isn’t it clear from that statement alone that Holder and the Justice Department have a mentality where the people they are most concerned with representing is not with Americans as a whole but with Blacks as a subset. It is almost as if a occupying force that distinguishes between the occupiers as a people and the occupied indigenous people and is concerned for the interests of the occupiers.

Would a Attorney General that was representing all Americans make a distinctions between his people and other Americans? In short Holder’s people are clearly not all Americans but rather Blacks. He is the Attorney General for Blacks and not for Americans.

Also, realize that as Attorney General Holder’s job is to enforce the law. It is not his job to enforce the law if he thinks some violation of the law doesn’t measure up to his interpretation of previous historical grievances. Either the law was broken or it wasn’t. If the law was broken, but not broken as egregiously as it may have been in the past, it does not matter. If the law was broken then the law must be enforced.

What this man is doing is basically saying … “Well, because my people had the law broken more egregiously in the 60’s and suffered far worse indignity than those white folks suffered in Philadelphia, therefore I don’t have to enforce the law now even though it was clearly violated.” Payback is a bitch don’t you know?

For Pete’s sake, the Attorney General even admits the action of the Philadelphia Black Panthers was “inappropriate.” Is that what we now call crimes by blacks against whites that we used to call “illegal?”

This is insane.