Wright on Ethnic Realities

“When the white population falls below the 50% mark, the days of whites running interference for blacks will be over. And so will those special laws biased towards safeguarding perquisites for the ‘Disadvantaged,’ which can be mighty expensive to enforce.

Again, what are the odds that those 18th-century injunctions devised by those funny little men in britches and waistcoats will prevail, once the polyglot new Americans from Asia and Central and South America begin to flex their political muscle?

So many blacks and their white liberal gurus failed to appreciate those Anglo-originated laws based on ‘self-evident truths’ and the consent of the governed, which were flexible enough to take under their protection the nation’s former slaves. Who will there be to ensure that jobs and scholarships and government contracts, and the surfeit of other entitlements, will be available for a people who have grown used to looking to others for slices from the economic pie, instead of baking their own share of it?

Once what’s left of constitutional law is gone, partly out of neglect, because the story of the Constitution and its creators will no longer be taught in the various Chinese-Indian-Latino-Arab colored school systems, a new corner will be turned. If blacks think they’ve been mistreated at the hands of whites, just wait until the affirmative action, set aside party is over–when there is no one to insist that they get undeserved perks, or have a ‘right’ to intrude themselves into places where they are not wanted.

The new dominant ethnics come to this land with their own sob stories of oppression. Unlike whites, they are hardly likely to fall over one another to apologize for past wrongs. Nor are they likely to spend their time in Congress concocting new laws designed to discriminate against their own sons and daughters in favor of blacks.

‘Reparations,’ did you say? Just wait until the first move is made to un-name and re-name some of those Martin Luther King, Jr. boulevards.”

Elizabeth Wright
Black essayist and social critic

 

1st John’s Indicators Concerning The Holy Spirit

In his first Epistle St. John gives three indicators that we have the Spirit and so abide in Him and He in us. The first is that we keep the commandments of Jesus. The second is that we confess that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh. The third is that we “love one another.”

Notice there is nothing there about the charismatic gifts.  Notice there is nothing there about the subjective inward look for the Spirit’s footprints that so many Pietists love. Really, the inward look, to one who is sensitive to God’s absolute standard of perfection is a recipe for despair. “I know that in me no good thing dwells.”

Note also how the Westminster Confession corresponds so well with St. John when it talks about the necessity of deed, word, and thought; or if you prefer, action, belief, attitude.

Keep in mind here that love (in the necessity to “Love one another”) can only be identified and defined by God’s law. The appeal here isn’t to a warm fuzzy feeling. The appeal here is to love as a verb… love shows action and the action it shows is treating our neighbors consistent with God’s revelation of Himself in his law.

Familialism and Folk Sayings

Often the wisdom of a long-standing truth is contained in our aphorisms, proverbs, and apothegms. Here is a brief primer on the long-standing truth of familialism (a love of, and so a proper prioritizing of one’s own kith and kin) as seen by the legacy of folk wisdom.

Our current mad rush towards egalitarianism and culture marxism overturns all this long and storied wisdom handed down by the centuries. With our rush to embrace multiculturalism, multifaithism, and multiracialism, we are cutting ourselves off from the wisdom of generations and generations of Christian forebears who have gone before us. With the embrace of cultural Marxism, with its egalitarian emphasis, we are violating a maxim taught to us by G. K. Chesterton that we should never take a fence down until we know why it was there.

Some of these are more obvious than others. Others will require you to pause and think of just a moment as to how they overturn the current trend of Alienism found among our cultural gatekeepers.

 

1.) Blood is thicker than water.
2.) The apple doesn’t fall far from the tree.
3.) A leopard cannot change its spots.
4.) Birds of a feather flock together.
5.) Bloom where you’re planted.
6.) You aren’t required to set yourself on fire to keep others warm.
7.) The greatest kindness will not bind the ungrateful.
8.) The same law for both the lion and ox is oppression.
9.) You can drive out Nature with a pitchfork, yet she will hurry back.
10.) Good fences make good neighbors.
11.) Every tub sits on its own bottom.
12.) They that lay down with dogs get up with fleas.
13.) A lamb adopted by a wolf pack will never be the alpha.
14.) Home is where you go when you have no place else to go.
15.) A house divided against itself cannot stand.
16.) Be it ever so humble, there is no place like home.
17.) Charity begins at home.
18.) Children are a poor man’s riches.
19.) Like Father, like son.
20.) An ounce of blood is worth more than a pound of friendship.
21.) Our ancestors dwell in the attics of our brains as they do in the spiraling chains of knowledge hidden in every cell of our bodies.
22.) Just because a cat has her kittens in the oven that doesn’t make them biscuits.

Hat Tip — Mickey Henry, Ehud Would, Matthew Lee, Colby Malsbury 

 

Enemies From Within; The ‘Evangelical Judenrat’

“A man’s enemies will be the members of his own household.” Mt. 10:36

“A nation can survive its fools and even the ambitious. But it cannot survive treason from within. An enemy at the gates is less formidable, for he is known and carries his banner openly. But the traitor moves amongst those within the gate freely, his sly whispers rustling through all the alleys, heard in the very halls of government itself. For the traitor appears not a traitor; he speaks in accents familiar to his victims, and he wears their face and their arguments, he appeals to the baseness that lies deep in the hearts of all men. He rots the soul of a nation, he works secretly and unknown in the night to undermine the pillars of the city, he infects the body politic so that it can no longer resist. A murderer is less to fear.”
 
 Marcus Tullius Cicero

In the film “Braveheart,” William Wallace comes to the point that he must kill the Scottish Lords as well as the English Lords because the two are in bed together and victory over the English will not be had unless the Scottish Lords beholden to the English are killed as well. The Scottish Lords were a fifth column that had to be eliminated.

While reading of Vespasian’s and Titus’ siege of Jerusalem one learns that the Zealots (Nationalists) busied themselves assassinating the Priestly class because the Priestly class was in bed with the Romans. Indeed the Priestly aristocratic class even attempted to open the Jerusalem gates for the Roman army. The Zealots, in their attempt to free Jerusalem from Rome, had to kill the Jewish priestly class as well as Romans.

In WW II the Judenrat, according to Hannah Arendt in her book on Adolph Eichman, assisted the Germans in controlling the Jews.

“To a Jew, this role of the Jewish leaders in the destruction of their own people is undoubtedly the darkest chapter of the whole dark story. […] In the matter of cooperation, there was no distinction between the highly assimilated Jewish communities of Central and Western Europe and the Yiddish-speaking masses of the East. In Amsterdam as in Warsaw, in Berlin as in Budapest, Jewish officials could be trusted to compile the lists of persons and of their property…”

If one is familiar with Literature that deals with the Ghettos in the WW II era this is a constant theme.

In light of all this, it should not be surprising that the greatest threat to the Church does not come from without the Church. The greatest threat comes from with the Church as from the Wormtongues and the Kim Philbys.  These are the modern Judenrat which are doing the work of the enemy by controlling the Church from within.

 

Mary’s Magnificat and the Liberation Theology Narrative

he has brought down the mighty from their thrones
    and exalted those of humble estate;
he has filled the hungry with good things,
    and the rich he has sent away empty.

Luke 1:52f

The position of Mary (or Zechariah, or Simeon, or Anna, etc.) is not important because they were low on the social ladder but because they were saints of God despite their poverty and oppression. Poverty as poverty doesn’t score you any points in the Kingdom of God if one doesn’t belong to Christ and the people of God. The antithesis of the Scripture is not between rich vs. poor but between the Seed of the Serpent vs. The seed of the woman. This is underscored also in Dr. Luke’s parabolic account of the rich man (Dives) and Lazarus. Lazarus is not in Hades because he was rich and Lazarus is not in Abraham’s bosom because he was poor. Dives is an occupant of Hades because he would not listen to Moses and the prophets regarding the Messiah while Dives did listen. God does not hate the rich because they are rich and He does not love the poor because they are poor.

The emphasis in Mary’s Song is that God remembers His people who are being oppressed by the wicked mighty. The whole thrust of Luke’s songs is to demonstrate that God has not forgotten His people despite the fact it might look that way and despite the fact that they are being oppressed by wealthy wickedness in high places (Herod, Augustus Caesar etc.). The fact that the Lord Christ is born among the lowly does not prove that lowliness as lowliness is a virtue. After all, Jesus was born of the line of great King David and God includes the High Born in the nativity story by including visitation from the Kings of the East. In Scripture, God esteems those in Covenant, rich or poor, and destroys those outside of covenant, rich or poor.

The point in Luke’s Songs is not that God favors poor wicked people over righteous rich people. The point is that God has remembered Israel and He has remembered Israel despite her captivity and the low status she has sunken into. This is Redemptive History and what is being accentuated is God remembering His promise to raise up a Messiah. The character of God is what is being put on display, not the status of those whom He is remembering. What is not being accentuated is that God is social class conscious. Believe me, if the nativity story were written today, given how much the Wealthy are hated by our current Cultural Marxist clergy, God would have His Messiah born among the rich and royal to add the factor of “isn’t God amazing that He brought His Messiah among such ignoble filthy rich people.” However, what we don’t see in the nativity narrative of the cultural Marxist clergy is the amazing God who keeps His promises no matter what. No, what we see are the amazing poor people who, “naturally enough” are lifted up. Given their noble poverty they deserve it after all.

Does God bring down all the “Mighty” from their thrones? Did God bring down Job? Abraham? David? Are Zaccheus or Joseph of Arimathea to be counted as inferior saints in the New and Better covenant because they were wealthy? Is the New and Better covenant characterized now by God hating all wealthy people and loving all poor people regardless of their faith or lack of faith in Christ? Has the lack of wealth now become the new standard of inherent righteousness? Is God now for the proletariat and against the Bourgeois? Did God inspire Das Kapital?

This preoccupation of the Church in the West with Marxist categories completely flummoxes me. God loves the righteous in Christ regardless of their socio-economic status and he hates the wicked outside of Christ regardless of their socio-economic status… even if they are as poor and wretched as Dicken’s Fagin.

Why is it that we seem to think that God loves the impoverished more than the wealthy simply on the basis of their impoverishment? God loves His people in Christ. It is a certainty that the wealthy saints have a charge to keep in terms of their brethren of low estate but those of low estate are not superior to those of wealth if they are both looking to Christ and resting in him, just as the wealthy are not superior to those of poverty in terms of status before God just because they are wealthy.

God hates the unrighteous wealthy wicked because they do tend to oppress the poor but he equally hates the unrighteous impoverished wicked because they do tend to envy the rich. It strikes me that we have made the envious unrighteous wicked poor some kind of gold standard to aspire to. This is not what Scripture teaches and it is all very strange.

This then is the verdict – the light has come into the world, but men have hated the light because their deeds were evil. If you walk in the light as he is in the light, then they will hate you too, regardless of your socio-economic status. Oppression is due to the gospel and very often the estimable poor are poor due to their righteousness eliciting persecution and not because the in Christ wealthy are keeping them down.