www.faithandheritage.com

Show post

Adi #racist #wingnut #elitist faithandheritage.com

(Post from early 2018 entitled “Prince Harry is a Traitor”)

Prince Harry has had a long reputation of bringing shame to the British royal family. Known for his drunken nights out partying and fornicating, he has often acted in a way that is most unbecoming for a prince of Wales. He has also been an active participant in evil elitist endeavors such as the war in Afghanistan and the sodomite and transgender agendas.

Through his rebellious nature, he has had some redeeming moments during his younger days when he angered the leftist establishment. Back in 2005, for example, he wore a shirt with a swastika on the shoulder to a party.

Now the “matured” Harry has been fully brought in line with the agenda. His engagement to American actress Meghan Markle breaks nearly every traditionalist taboo that has preserved some semblance of chivalry among the British royal family:

1. While Kate Middleton, the wife of older brother William, has been criticized for not being enough of a feminist, Markle is being hailed as the first true feminist in the British royal family.

2. Markle is not only from a completely unrelated foreign people, but is not even from his own race. This means that the royal bloodline will, from now on, be forever stained with foreign DNA, which will greatly impede the family’s representative duties toward and relationship with the nation with which they have historically and covenantally been endowed.

3. Markle is a divorcée. While I do not think remarriage after divorce is always sinful, it needs to be approached with caution. In this regard the Church of England’s position – that if exes are still alive, remarriage should be granted only in exceptional circumstances – is a commendable one. In Harry’s case, it is good reason not to marry Markle on these grounds alone. Reportedly, it was her career that stood in the way of her previous marriage, which is itself a testimony to the fact that she, as a feminist, wouldn’t put her family first. It also implies that her divorce was based on illegitimate grounds. Rumors are already doing the rounds that because of this, Queen Elizabeth might not attend the wedding at all.

4. Finally, as Markle is a descendant of a freed slave, the marriage is also unwise based on the criteria of social class alone. Class distinctions lie at the very foundation of the institution and maintenance of royalty, which is based on fundamentally anti-egalitarian propositions. By showing his complete disregard for social (in addition to racial) distinctions, Harry’s marriage is an attack on the very institution of the monarchy itself.

I would say that, if the wedding were to take place, it would mark a sad day for the Anglo-Saxon world, but then again, the royal family hasn’t had their people’s best interest at heart for a very long time.

Show post

Colby Malsbury #wingnut #conspiracy faithandheritage.com

I usually find the ubiquity of celebrity death watches on this world wide web of ours morbid, as everyone ought, but there’s no denying that the August 25 [2018] passing of one of the denizens of that list – the gorgon John McCain – made my day. Not just my day, either. For the first time in collective memory, both the extreme left and the extreme right had a common cause to celebrate in tandem:

image
[Picture with the text “John McCain is dead” written at the top, followed by a Political Compass in which each of the four quadrants has a picture of a cheering guy and a picture of a crying woman is at the center]

The pundit class always bemoans the lack of ‘bipartisanship’ these days. Well, here’s what you’re looking for, baby! For a couple of days, anyway.

That still leaves plenty of room for the maudlin middle – in both its liberal and especially risable cohenservative wings – to signal its collective virtue via expressions of sycophantic tribute, to placate I know not whom. Or, to put it a less delicate way, the brown-nosing underway in honor of Songbird’s memory is positively nauseating. Here’s a fun drinking game: take a shot every time you run across a news item referring to McCain as a ‘hero’. (Faith & Heritage assumes no responsibility for resulting liver damage or sustained spiritual trauma if you happen to be a Baptist.)

Of course, the cascade of crocodile tears culminated in a week-long funerary jaunt from coast to coast, with stops at every conceivably relevant venue – from the Arizona state Capitol to the DC Capitol to the National Cathedral to the Vietnam Veteran’s Memorial to the US Naval Academy. Such an unwieldy procession brings to mind nothing more dignified than one of the Rolling Stones’ interminable ‘farewell’ tours, or perhaps a spurious bleeding Marian icon making a pilgrimage through some of the more superstitious backwaters of rural Italy. At every stop, scads of crowds withstood late summer temperatures to pay their respects to Famous Dead Guy. The unlikeliest of illustrious potentates attended his funeral – all the surviving presidents, plus everyone from Joe Biden to Henry Kissinger to retired Diamondbacks outfielder Luis Gonzalez to Warren Beatty (!!!!) All of this, I might add, for a mere senator. His having been a presidential candidate as well had little to do with all this pomp and circumstance. I don’t recollect similar hosannas being lauded upon the passing of, say, George McGovern.

Well into the month of September, lamestream media outposts on the right and on the left engaged in a pitched battle of dueling banjos to see who could sing this stalwart warrior into Valhalla with the sweetest melody. Things got downright surreal when Stevie Wonder, of all people, dedicated a song to McCain during a concert. No word as to whether radio stations with an 80s format suspended airplay of Tina Turner’s “We Don’t Need Another Hero,” but given the trajectory I think that’s a given.

To paraphrase Creedence Clearwater Revival: Senator McCain, you are one fortunate son, sir. This astonishing national love-in permeated down to the level of us mere plebians. If you dared mention the fact that our dearly departed treasure had more than a couple of black marks on his record, your normie friends and family (assuming you have any) would have reacted as though you had sent your grandmother to live in a tent in the backyard during a polar vortex. “How DARE you???? Don’t you know he was a HERO??? A WAR hero???? What have you done with your life? Show some respect!!! You’re just a damned North Korean!!!!” Sound familiar? Maybe, if they were of a liberal bent, they would have qualified their indignation ever so slightly: “Yes, I didn’t agree with all his politics either, but that’s beside the point now!!! How can you sit there and speak ill of the dead??? You’re just a damned North Korean!!!!” Where do these people come up with their great ideas?

This, of course, leads to a wider theological question: where, exactly, is it written that to speak ill of the recently-departed dead is sin? If we are to affirm that it is indeed found in the Scriptures ‘somewhere’, then we also must reckon God a sinner, as He ordained the harlot Jezebel’s torso to be ‘disrespectfully’ dragged off by dogs after she had not been dead from her great fall even one day (II Kings 9:30-37), to cite just one example. Or could it just be that we don’t find such postmortem criticism cricket? Well, that’s just too bad, isn’t it? Marquis of Queensbury rules have not been canonized, last time I checked.

And leaving aside McCain himself for a second, of what possible benefit can it be to anyone to sing the praises of an unrepentant reprobate who has just passed on? In the New Age-y vernacular of the times, all funerals are a ‘celebration of life’. Who in their right mind would celebrate a life that had been utterly wasted on evil vanities? Anyone who would desire to be memorialized with lying tributes warrants nothing more than an unmarked grave. Such tributes can also be viewed as an egregious violation of the Fifth Commandment. Can any good be brought upon a mother or father by mealy-mouthed flatteries designed to act as the hollowest of reassurances rather than as a summation of a life to be learned from for those who yet walk upon the earth? We honor our ancestors. We don’t worship them.

More to the point of the subject at hand: I can find zero excuse for joining with the Consensus Chorus and lauding McCain as a hero.

It is not heroic to cause a fire on board an aircraft carrier that kills 134 crewmen because you ignited a Zuni rocket on your jet fighter after wet-starting it in a pointless show of bravado.

It is not heroic to get your daddy – the admiral in charge of the US Navy’s entire Pacific fleet – to intervene so that this shameful incident will be expunged from your record.

It is not heroic to get shot down over North Vietnam because you were flying too low – well within radar range – in direct contravention of orders. Again, because you were hotdogging.

It is not heroic to chirp like a canary towards your NVA captors so that you can get an extra Ritz cracker with your daily bowl of fishheads and rats.

It is especially unheroic to agree to broadcast Communist agitprop over North Vietnamese radio – which broadcasts would be duly re-aired on a wider frequency so that Voice of America could intercept them.

It is not heroic to justify this treason later in your career by whining about the ‘torture’ you underwent.

It is not heroic to divorce your first wife because she was ‘kind of a drag’ after undergoing years of therapy to recover from a near-fatal car accident.

It is not heroic to commit adultery against your first wife by jetting off for trysts across the country with your current wife.

It is not heroic to allow yourself to be wined, dined, and bribed by chief savings & loan crook Charles Keating, to blatantly lie about your involvement with him before television cameras, and to gain a reputation as the most unscrupulous of the notorious Keating Five…all in your freshman term in the Senate.

It is not heroic to make your mark in the Senate as its preeminent chickenhawk, gleefully acquiescing in any and every war that serves Israel’s interests, and to codify that status via stupid stunts like singing about bombing Iran.

It is not heroic to submit a bill calling for women to be subject to draft registration.

It is not heroic to have yourself photographed with Syrian ‘freedom fighters’ connected with ISIS, and proudly posting such on your Twitter feed.

It is not heroic to allow the laughably left-wing partisan Snopes to refute most of the above points as ‘conspiracy theories’.

And finally, it not only is not heroic but is exceptionally creepy to insist that everyone who attends your funeral services RSVP beforehand. What are you, a Rothschild?

This is only the stuff that is on the public record, as well. If we are to factor in the doubtless numerous skeletons in his closet, McCain’s life becomes all the more damning. Suffice it to say that while I am not a fan of Donald Trump, he was spot on the money when he said that it takes more than sitting in a tropical prison cell for half a decade to constitute a hero. I can see no good out of pretending otherwise now that Son of Cain is safely ensconced in Gehenna.

I can think of no better concluding remark than that proffered by Mark Dice: “Is John McCain’s funeral over yet?”

Show post

Ehud Would #racist #wingnut #fundie faithandheritage.com

Jeff Durbin opens his comedy show by saying, “As Christians, we condemn, completely, racism. Racism is essentially hatred. It’s hatred for another person, another image-bearer of God, because of the color of their skin.”

I have never met any White who fits that criteria. I mean, as someone who has been called racist a lot, I can tell you, I have no hatred for any particular color. But I do hate evil, and the large majority of Blacks are monstrously evil. Not least of which for their insistence that my people have no right to live — a position nigh universal to them. No, to the extent that Blacks are hated, it is in MLK’s historic words, “not on account of their color, but the content of their character.”

And though motives vary, the Right are not motivated by hatred of anyone so much as a sense of priority for their own children and culture, and a sense of responsibility to ancestors, posterity, and God.

Most funny, though, is that Durbin’s definition of ‘racism’ is all but unanimously condemned by Blacks as ‘blatant White Supremacy.’ So, yeah, he only provokes the very people he means to appease. For all his virtue signalling, the Antifa folk to whom he’s catering regard Durbin indistinguishable from the ‘Nazis.’ He may deceive himself into believing he is on the side of the downtrodden minorities, but as an anti-abortion cis White Christian, Durbin is to them only a target, and the only people who might defend him are the mean ol’ ‘racists’ he condemns.

Show post

Adi #fundie #wingnut faithandheritage.com

In a previous piece I noted how resistance against tyranny is a demand of the counter-revolutionary worldview. I argued that the use of political violence was not intrinsically at odds with the counter-revolutionary position. In this piece I would like to emphasise how this can by exemplified with a concrete historical example from the previous century. In the birthplace of the Revolution – where the Enlightenment found its greatest manifestation – France, we also saw the establishment of the first profoundly counter-revolutionary state in post-Enlightenment Europe: Vichy France. This state, which lasted from 1940 to 1944, was instituted by the French Prime Minister at the time, Philippe Pétain.

Pétain was regarded as a national hero because of his heroics in the First World War. Once in power, however, Pétain immediately moved to make peace with Germany and dissolve the Third French Republic, establishing the state of Vichy France.

The new state had to suppress those military forces who remained loyal to the old government and allied regime, called the French Resistance.

The Christian counter-revolutionary nature of the state was nowhere better exemplified than in its replacement of the revolutionary motto of Liberté, Égalité, Fraternité (Freedom, Equality, Brotherhood) with its own tripartite motto: Travail, Famille, Patrie (Labor, Family, Fatherland). Pétain himself explained his counter-revolutionary opposition to the ideologies of the Enlightenment:

“When our young people . . . approach adult life, we shall say to them . . . that real liberty cannot be exercised except under the shelter of a guiding authority, which they must respect, which they must obey. . . . We shall then tell them that equality [should] set itself within the framework of a hierarchy, founded on the diversity of office and merits. . . . Finally, we shall tell them that there is no way of having true brotherhood except within those natural groups, the family, the town, the homeland.”

A national counter-revolutionary program, ironically called the Révolution Nationale, was implemented on the basis of the ideology underlying the counter-revolutionary triad. Charles Maurras, an outspoken counter-revolutionary Roman Catholic, was the program’s ideological father.

Maurras opposed the Enlightenment as a negative development on the West and the French people. He rejected equality and democracy and favoured a royalist, decentralized state with a national Church as protector of the moral order. On an economic level he favoured the re-institution of guilds – a kind of corporatism as an alternative to both capitalism and socialism. His theory of integral nationalism stood directly opposed to liberal civic nationalism in its view of the nation as an organic unity, albeit with a strong hierarchical structure.

The Révolution Nationale followed this ideology and made the following reforms in France:

– Measures to oppose the influence of Communists and Freemasons in the country
– Criminalization of homosexuality
– An ethnicity-based form of citizenship and promotion of ethnonationalism
– Corporatist reforms of the economy to oppose both capitalism and socialism
– A pro-agrarian policy that strove to curb the process of urbanization
– Restoration of patriarchal social and familial structures and tightening of divorce laws
– Intensifying the punishment for committing abortions
– Reinstatement of a Roman Catholic curriculum in secular public schools

Vichy France serves as a prime example of how counter-revolutionaries practically acted in reforming their nation and state in a distinctly non-pacifistic manner. Pétain was a war hero and not one to shy away from a physical conflict. The counter-revolutionary program implemented in Vichy France was even called a “National Revolution,” which changes nothing with regards to its counter-revolutionary nature given its anti-Enlightenment epistemic and philosophical basis. Vichy France implemented this all in the midst of strong opposition both at home and abroad. Even though the French government was not violently overthrown, it was a revolutionary shift in political authority that the men of Vichy France defended with violence against loyalists of the French Republic. It is a good example of a major political revolution in the midst of a brutal war, and it has a fundamentally counter-revolutionary character.

Modern-day Christian nationalist movements, such as those in Poland and Hungary and those now emerging all over the West, may in the very near future have to actively intensify their resistance to godless leaders in Brussels, and they would be right in doing so. It is our duty as children of God to engage in active resistance against tyranny – that is, to not remain content with being mere sociopolitical critics and a witnessing voice for the gospel, but, if need be, to actively engage in building the Kingdom of Christ proclaimed by that gospel.

Show post

Adi #fundie #wingnut #racist faithandheritage.com

True repentance involves acknowledgment of wronging God and neighbor – and the South African singer, songwriter, and actor Steve Hofmeyr, now the most prominent Boer nationalist, took that very bold step[...]

Back in 1992, just after the abolishment of the majority of segregation laws, white South Africans went to the polls to vote on entering a multiracial liberal democracy, with 69% of the electorate sadly voting ‘yes’. A no vote could have forced the government to negotiate for a white homeland in South Africa, but the silent generation and the boomers quite literally gave away the country to Marxist enemies of God and our people. Hofmeyr, a leftist at the time, was one of those who voted in favor of this abomination.

[H]owever, in a Facebook post he admitted that his vote was “treason against my people and their sovereignty. It was high treason against my God to allow Communism into the life of my family. I deeply regret this.”

Confessions don’t come much clearer than that. While it might possibly be too late for the Boer people, Hofmeyr is now a forgiven man. Forgiven by his people and, if his heart is as true as I think it is, also forgiven by God. It certainly wasn’t too late for him. He will go down in history as a Boer hero.

Show post

Adam Grey #wingnut #sexist faithandheritage.com

Can anyone name a female politician who has actually accomplished anything of worth for traditionalists in the last 50 years?

Asking for a friend.

It’s 2018, the so-called “Year of the Woman,” and while the Left is pushing their vagina privilege with reckless abandon, the faux Right is trying to keep pace by dumping feminists onto their voter base with impunity.

The question any half-witted conservative/traditionalist should ask himself before pulling a lever this November is, are these women part of the solution or just more of the problem?

Even if we exclude the non-white “conservative” female pols that the GOP has forced on us, such as Condoleeza Rice and Nimrata Randhawa (aka Nikki Haley), they’ve convinced us over the past half-century to gush over white “conservative” female politicians such as Elizabeth Dole, Sarah Palin, Michele Bachmann, Carly Fiorina, Liz Cheney, and Pam Bondi.

I have previously written about the influx of pretty blonde conservatives into American politics that picked up speed in the early 2000s during the George W. Bush administration and the early years of Fox News. Today, any media outlet that is slightly to the right of center has more than its share of pretty “conservative” faces telling their mostly-male audiences what to believe and how to live.

The Alt Right/Alt Lite has had its own slate of female media celebrities since 2015. Now one of them, Faith Goldy, is running for mayor of Toronto.

This relevant observation by Brandon Martinez poses a good question.

Women like Goldy, Lauren Southern and others are little more than fame-hungry opportunists who saw a growing niche market with the alt-light, alt-right and pro-Trump movements. They’re simply capitalizing on these sentiments in order to make money and get men to gawk at them on YouTube. That’s just what women do, always on the hunt for opportunities to increase their profile and status. And stupid men give it to them. Why do we need bimbo broads like these to become leading voices for nationalism when all they do is sell us half-truths and dumb cuckservative talking points that half-witted male alt-lighters like Cernovich, Yiannopoulos and Watson have been expressing more intelligently?

If we look at female candidates like Goldy and ask, “Will she support those policies I believe in, more than the other candidates?” we might well find ourselves answering in the affirmative. If it’s a simple lesser of two evils choice, sometimes the “conservative” female is less evil.

However, if the question is, “Is this female candidate part of the solution or just more of the problem?” then the answer is simple.

In a sane world there would be no need for these ladies to take up the political battle ax. In a sane world, there would be plenty of men to do the job and those ladies would be willing to let the men do it.

In our world, the presence of these women in leadership positions may be partly due to the absence of men willing to step up and lead. However, I place greater blame on the ideological force of egalitarianism vis-à-vis feminism for keeping those men in their homes and pushing those women out of their homes.

It’s not as if for centuries there were chronic shortages of men to do the work of governance. That is, not until feminism convinced women to shove their way into governance, and shamed men into giving up their positions of governance. That includes more than serving in elected offices. The basic tool of civic governance is the right to vote. By giving women the vote, men abdicated half their power to govern their society. Eve had suddenly become independent of, and equal to, Adam. Goodbye traditional America, hello clown world.

Today men on the Left believe it is morally virtuous to elect women instead of men. Men on the faux Right are just a few years away from adopting that same moral view, just as they adopted the once-radical Leftist notion that electing non-whites instead of whites is the morally virtuous thing to do. See the presidential candidacies of Alan Keyes and Ben Carson for reference.

The solution is not to elect “conservative” women or non-whites. The solution is for white men to lead in every part of our society. And where right-minded white men are lacking, you dear reader, can be the solution. Remember Gideon.

The best politically-active women have been those who championed traditional gender roles and nationalism, such as Phyllis Schlafly and Ann Coulter. But even they have not been the shining lights of our people. They themselves would tell you that white men have fulfilled that role.

So this November, electing the “conservative” white female candidate is not the answer. The answer might take a little longer to see in positions of leadership, but the answer is obvious. And it wears pants.