Hardly: "VDARE.com: Immigration and the Unmentionable Question of Ethnic Interests, by Kevin MacDonald"

The Zionists encourage first and foremost English Americans to promote a "melting pot," which thinking spilled over to White Europeans in Europe and elsewhere, while those Zionists perform ethnic cleansing. Therefore, let's all be more like the Zionists?

VDARE.com: Immigration And The Unmentionable Question Of Ethnic Interests, by Kevin MacDonald

Hardly.

Let's stop the Zionists instead. The world can return to Homo sapiens as one family. Then no one loses unless we are wicked to non-humans.

See also:

  1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kevin_B._MacDonald
  2. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutionary_psychology
  3. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occidental_Quarterly
  4. http://www.google.com/search?rls=en&q=%22dual+Torah
  5. http://www.kevinmacdonald.net/replies.htm
  6. http://www.toqonline.com/
  7. http://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/
  8. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Identity_politics

Donate


The following should appear at the end of every post:

According to the IRS, "Know the law: Avoid political campaign intervention":

Tax-exempt section 501(c)(3) organizations like churches, universities, and hospitals must follow the law regarding political campaigns. Unfortunately, some don't know the law.

Under the Internal Revenue Code, all section 501(c)(3) organizations are prohibited from participating in any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office. The prohibition applies to campaigns at the federal, state and local level.

Violation of this prohibition may result in denial or revocation of tax-exempt status and the imposition of certain excise taxes. Section 501(c)(3) private foundations are subject to additional restrictions.

Political Campaign Intervention

Political campaign intervention includes any activities that favor or oppose one or more candidates for public office. The prohibition extends beyond candidate endorsements.

Contributions to political campaign funds, public statements of support or opposition (verbal or written) made by or on behalf of an organization, and the distribution of materials prepared by others that support or oppose any candidate for public office all violate the prohibition on political campaign intervention.

Factors in determining whether a communication results in political campaign intervention include the following:

  • Whether the statement identifies one or more candidates for a given public office
  • Whether the statement expresses approval or disapproval of one or more candidates' positions and/or actions
  • Whether the statement is delivered close in time to the election
  • Whether the statement makes reference to voting or an election
  • Whether the issue addressed distinguishes candidates for a given office

Many religious organizations believe, as we do, that the above constitutes a violation of the First Amendment of the US Constitution.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

That said, we make the following absolutely clear here:

  • The Real Liberal Christian Church and Christian Commons Project not only do not endorse any candidate for any secular office, we say that Christianity forbids voting in such elections.
  • Furthermore, when we discuss any public-office holder's position, policy, action or inaction, we definitely are not encouraging anyone to vote for that office holder's position.
  • We are not trying to influence secular elections but rather want people to come out from that entire fallen system.
  • When we analyze or discuss what is termed "public policy," we do it entirely from a theological standpoint with an eye to educating professing Christians and those to whom we are openly always proselytizing to convert to authentic Christianity.
  • It is impossible for us to fully evangelize and proselytize without directly discussing the pros and cons of public policy and the positions of secular-office holders, hence the unconstitutionality of the IRS code on the matter.
  • We are not rich and wouldn't be looking for a fight regardless. What we cannot do is compromise our faith (which seeks to harm nobody, quite the contrary).
  • We render unto Caesar what is Caesar's. We render unto God what is God's.
  • When Caesar says to us that unless we shut up about the unrighteousness of Caesar's policies and practices, we will lose the ability of people who donate to us to declare their donations as deductions on their federal and state income-tax returns, we say to Caesar that we cannot shut up while exercising our religion in a very reasonable way.
  • We consider the IRS code on this matter as deliberate economic duress (a form of coercion) and a direct attempt by the federal government to censor dissenting, free political and religious speech.
  • It's not freedom of religion if they tax it.

And when they were come to Capernaum, they that received tribute money came to Peter, and said, Doth not your master pay tribute? He saith, Yes. And when he was come into the house, Jesus prevented him, saying, What thinkest thou, Simon? of whom do the kings of the earth take custom or tribute? of their own children, or of strangers? Peter saith unto him, Of strangers. Jesus saith unto him, Then are the children free. (Matthew 17:24-26)

  • Subscribe


  • Tom Usher

    About Tom Usher

    Employment: 2008 - present, website developer and writer. 2015 - present, insurance broker. Education: Arizona State University, Bachelor of Science in Political Science. City University of Seattle, graduate studies in Public Administration. Volunteerism: 2007 - present, president of the Real Liberal Christian Church and Christian Commons Project.
    This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.
    • Thomas Smitherman

      I don't know what to think of Prof MacDonald, but it is clear that there are people who are free in this world (dis)order to talk openly of their own ethnic/national interests and to sacrifice everyone else to these while turning around and suppressing any talk of national interest by others as "racist".

      Tom Usher

      The Zionists encourage first and foremost English Americans to promote a "melting pot," which thinking spilled over to White Europeans in Europe and elsewhere, while those Zionists perform ethnic cleansing. Therefore, let's all be more like the Zionists? Hardly.

      Let's stop the Zionists instead. The world can return to Homo sapiens as one family. Then no one loses unless we are wicked to non-humans.

      Thomas Smitherman

      Tom, the biological racism of Zionists, a phenomenon that obviously predates Zionism and will likely survive it as well, must always be opposed. That said, States and nations have their own interests which need not be aggressive or mutually exclusive. Zionists and neocons are among the first to proclaim globalist cosmopolitan values, anti-xenophobia campaigns, etc. ... except for Israel, which means all other States and peoples relinquish their interests for the good of a foreign power (as well as global capitalism). A real internationalism, however, must be founded on the joining of nations that already have a good degree of social cohesion and where the values of these peoples have largely converged. It is a process that requires more than international good will or denials of a national consciousness.

      Tom Usher

      Thomas, the process of planting the seed of returning to Homo sapiens as one family is the process of the "joining of...["subunits"] that already have a good degree of social cohesion and where the values of these peoples have largely converged."

      It is developing cohesion around its own value. The object is that all Homo sapiens together comprise one nation. That understanding is better than not.

      Are you clarifying or disagreeing or both? It's not readily apparent.

      Thomas Smitherman

      Generally clarifying. We might disagree, but I do not think we are on two ends of a spectrum. I am saying, for my own point of view (that might not be that of, say, Prof MacDonald) that national interests do exist and are legitimate but biologically-motivated racial interests are not. Zionists (e.g., ADL) practise both but tend to propagandise abroad that both are morally wrong.

      It would be strange to suggest one cannot further subcategorise homo sapiens. Individuals with strong moral compasses build good families. Good families build good communities > strong regions/tribes > strong nations/nation-states > just "global community". The current globalist elites claim to offer internationalism but are tearing down the intermediary social institutions like family and nation, so we are left with quasi-atomistic individuals and some state bureaucracies and corporations. But the latter cannot promote a just international order, nor can you obtain this by simply revolting against globalist elites. One must rebuild the institutions which lie between the individual and universal humanity.

      Des Brittain

      Bloody well said, Thomas!

      Tom Usher

      Thomas and Des, if Homo sapiens constitute one family, what are national interests?

      Des, do you not think Homo sapiens constitute one family?

      Do either of you specifically require America or England (the nation or tribe or conglomeration of tribes) between the whole of humanity and you? I don't. I have no problem with local organizing and groupings of local organizations to keep the span-of-control manageable. I don't need sovereignty vested in other than all the way from God to myself. Everything else can be sovereign too.

      What I don't like is the idea of selfish territoriality that runs against the spirit of which I'm writing here. Selfish invaders aren't desired either. We need universal enlightenment, not Jewish or English or White Identity at its expense.

      That there are those with bad intentions go at the "American" nation does not mean therefore that one world means only what those particular "globalist elites" claim it does.

      The world as nation is not a bad idea, per se.

      Humanity can gain a strong moral compass and be a good family of families of families, however you want to categorize and sub-categorize.

      Do you have a problem with that, Des?

      No reply