The American Spectator

CB| 11.24.09 @ 7:33AM

...should be required reading for all high schoolers.
Thank you, Mr. Lord

Alan Brooks| 11.24.09 @ 4:11PM

I don't think Puritan protestants were any less tyrannical than the Church of England. Cromwell was no less a tyrant than James II was a decade or two later, and probably more of one.

Stuart Koehl| 11.24.09 @ 8:53AM

Let's be clear, though: the concept of "religious liberty" or "freedom of conscience" as we know it to day was an alien concept in the 17th century. Bradford and the Separatists had no live-and-let-live inclinations towards those with whom they had doctrinal disagreements. They believed they were right, and because they took their faith seriously, they saw it as something greater than a matter of life-and-death, they saw it as a matter of salvation or damnation.

Had the shoe been on the other foot, then Bradford would have been just as repressive towards Anglicans, Lutherans, Covenanters, Presbyterians, Anabaptists and the myriad other dissenter sects--to say nothing of Roman Catholics.

And when, finally, Bradford and his followers arrived in the New World, they proceeded to order their society in just that way. Church membership and attendance was mandatory; doctrinal deviance was sanctioned by a range of punishments. The fate of Roger Williams is instructive, as is the rocky relationship between Plimoth Plantation, Massachusetts Bay Colony, and later, Connecticut.

The story goes that the Puritans came to America seeking freedom of religion. In truth, they went seeking freedom from other peoples' religion--but they had no intention or desire to extend that courtesy to those with whom they disagreed.

Vern Crisler| 11.24.09 @ 11:28AM

Well, let's not despise small steps. They paved the way for larger paths.

Paul D| 11.24.09 @ 1:18PM

You raise some interesting points. Somewhat debatable, perhaps. But what is not clear in this article and in your comments is the distinction between Separatists and Puritans. Puritans were called Puritans (as an insult) because they wanted to "purify" the Church of England. Hence they remained officially loyal to the King, who was head of both Church and State.

The Separatists did not think the Church could be purified and thus wished to "separate" themselves from it and start their own church. Such separation automatically made them traitors to the King since the concept of Separation of Church and State did not exist.

Thus the Mayflower colony remained separate from the Puritan colonies that followed after, for some time. This pattern continued in America as different denominations settled in what became the different states. Most did not get along. But they gradually learned to live and let live (geographic separation helped) under common forms of government. It is from these lessons learned that we get our concept of Separation of Church and State and our aversion to a State sponsored Church. That aversion is encapsulated in the establishment clause of the First amendment to the Constitution.

victor| 11.25.09 @ 12:23AM

That depends on what your concept of "separation of church and state" is. Or even what the meaning of "is" is.
The Founders had no such concept as they believed that the church, small "c", should not be absent from the public square.
What they had an aversion to, was the State sponsoring an "official" religion.
Jefferson calmed the fears of the Danbury Baptists, being a minority in Connecticut, who feared the Regular Baptists would bar them from worship. Jefferson, as the other Founders, did not want an "official" Religion.
The modern concept of SepChuState comes from Hugo Black in the case of Everson, where he misinterpreted Jefferson's phrase and said that Jefferson meant that no public support could be given to churches.
Black made this up out of whole cloth because of his membership in the Klan and his anti-catholic bigotry.
This, of course, has led to the ACLU, PAW, Michael Newdow, the athiest, and "Rev" Barry Lynn, who have campaigned tirelessly to remove all traces of God from the public square.

Paul D| 11.25.09 @ 9:14AM

Victor,

You are absolutely right. The Founding Fathers knew what they were doing when they wrote the establishment clause. The Supreme Court has made an absolute mess of it since then.

Had the Supreme court any understanding of "original intent" in that clause, we would not be having the mass confusion we now have over creches on public property and crosses on public lands.

ChuckD| 11.24.09 @ 2:02PM

True enough, however from this band of hearty Puritans arose the champion of true religious freedom. I am speaking of course of Anne Hutchinson. She believed that every person could read and interpret the Bible on their own. And she believed that participation in government should not be tied to an individual's religious beliefs.

Bradford's belief in purchasing land from the Indians instead of King James should not be dismissed as minor. This was a significant departure and put him at odds with the world view of most Europeans who believed in the Divine Right of Kings.

And don't forget Roger Williams, who founded Providence. Although he was himself a Calvinist, and a close friend of Oliver Cromwell, he believed in separation of church and state -but not the exclusion of church from state- and upon this principle he formed his government in Providence.

Red Phillips| 11.24.09 @ 4:09PM

I'm glad Stuart said this. Those who say the early settlers came here for religious liberty are only half right. They came here because they thought the other guys were wrong and they were right and they wanted to set up a society based on right theology as they saw it. They were not committed to the religious freedom of those they thought were wrong. What many moderns can't understand, in our day of casual cafeteria religion, is how seriously religion was taken at the time.

victor| 11.28.09 @ 9:46PM

You couldn't be more hopelessly wrong.
They were not looking to take over Holland.
They were looking to leave England, but could not book passage.
They wanted to set up their society according to the Scriptures, not man's word.
Why should they accept those who did not follow God's Law.
Murder, theft, lying and adultery are things they did not live by. Maybe you do and that's why you single them out for scorn.
Why should we welcome those of you who believe in Abortion, Homosexual "marriage", Euthanasia,
Drug use and gambling to name a few.

TennesseeVolunteer| 11.24.09 @ 9:35AM

Stuart, that is why freedom of religion is so important. It was after our founders wrote the Constitution that America was one of the few places in the world where you could choose to go your own way.

David Thomas| 11.24.09 @ 10:05AM

Thank you, Mr. Lord. This story points out the importance of maintaining the "two spheres" of church and state--civil authority to keep order and protect the populace, and church authority to uphold doctrine and form character. The best civil authority yet devised is the US Constitution. The best ecclesial authority is the Rock of St. Peter, established by Christ himself.

Ryan| 11.24.09 @ 2:13PM

Probably not quite the occasion, but we could go into the various ecclesial and doctrinal failures of the RCC as well.

Of course, that's from my own Protestant point of view...

David T. | 11.25.09 @ 11:23AM

Ryan--Thanks for admitting your bias...

cym rhondda| 11.27.09 @ 9:22AM

...The best ecclesial authority is the Rock of St. Peter, established by Christ himself.

Really? David Thomas. It is interesting that the Mayflower compact does not give any support to such a fatuitous claim.

Scripture is clear that Christ himself is the 'Rock' while Peter (Petros) is but one of the living stones. The best ecclesial authority is Scripture, NOT tradition. Peter never made any such claim for himself.

bob alou| 11.27.09 @ 3:41PM

Tradition of the church is (can be) the ultimate heresy. As you CR, say, Peter never claimed for himself the mantle with which the RCC cloak him. Nor was Mary the eternal virgin; a Priest capable of giving absolution for sins; purgatory, infant baptism or praying to the saints a scripturally supportable proposition; indulgences for sin; I could go on but might rather refer interested observers to the 95 theses Martin Luther nailed to the church door at Whittenberg, many of which, almost 500 years later, remain extant critiques. There are many relevant criticisms of the Christian church which is not to say that all criticisms are relevant. Those who seek salvation should look at Jesus Christ in whom there is no blame or imperfection. The truth is not out there, it is in Him.

David T.| 11.27.09 @ 4:14PM

bob alou--There is a biblical basis to all the objections you raise. As for Luther's 95 theses, they were buried forever at the Council of Trent in 1645. Yes, Jesus is the truth, but he established the Church, his mystical body, to be the pillar and foundation of it all. As a Protestant, I never understood these things, but I have been awakened to the beauty, majesty, and fullness of Christ in the Catholic Church. Try reading G.K. Chesterton, as a start.

bob alou| 11.27.09 @ 4:52PM

David, as nicely as I can say this; why don't you cite your scriptural justification and then perhaps I will agree that you have made your case regarding praying to the saints, the cult of Mary, purgatory, the priests as intercessary or to be referred to as father, the selling of indulgences, the infallibility of the pope (or any other human for that matter or Peter as the first appointed (see the greek translation of little stone Petro er and big stone, rock petra, and you will see the error of the RCC. the tradition of the church as superior to scripture, or the "mystical body" of the church. As for the Council of Trent; all it did was condemn the protestant criticisms that it was afraid to address. As for G.K Chesterton; while he was a fine writer your time, if you want to understand what scripture teaches, would be better spent in reading the Bible which is, as R.G.Lee was fond of saying, is its own best commentary.

David T.| 11.27.09 @ 3:48PM

cym rhondda--I said nothing about the Mayflower Compact. I simply said the Rock of St. Peter is the true ecclesial authority. It is the one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church, founded by Christ himself, that is the pillar and foundation of all truth. See 1 Tim 3:15.

victor| 11.28.09 @ 10:07PM

The church is not a physical place:
Acts 17:24
"God that made the world and all things therein __ seeing that he is Lord of heaven and earth dwelleth not in temples made with hands"
or Jesus in Matt 18:20
"or where two or three are gathered together in my name there am I in the midst of them"

The Word of God is the True Authority, no matter where a Christian is.

For most of the world, the church of Christ are the Believers, wherever they may be.

p| 11.11.10 @ 12:02AM

I think he was referring to the statement Jesus made to peter " upon this rock I will build my church and the gates of hell shall prevail against it"

Kevin, Meath| 11.24.09 @ 10:19AM

Stuart at one level is correct, they did leave England not because they wanted freedom of religion but because they were not in a position to impose their views on the whole country. However you have to remember that people didn't think like 21st century people in the 16/17th, religion very important to their day to day lives (as it is to many today) but not tolerating 'false worship' or the 'antichrist' was also huge. Europe was in the process of a series of religious wars that was to blight centuries. No King of any country could easily tolerate new sects etc because they could mean revolt etc and often involments with countries. What you have to remember that they brought with them sets of values that would evolve into the 'backbone' of american values, culture and beliefs.

Al Adab| 11.24.09 @ 11:26AM

Does the WSJ still publish Bradford on the "Faire Land" the day before Thanksgiving? I looked forward to it every year as a reminder of our past traditions of Liberty and Freedom.

They also published Vermont Royster "In Hoc Anno Domini" every Christmas Eve as well. Very moving and reflective. Hope they still do and never stop.

Jocon307| 11.28.09 @ 4:57PM

Yes the WSJ does publish that every year. I'm not quite sure but you can go to opinionjournal.com and see if you can still find it.

Northern Rebel| 11.24.09 @ 12:37PM

Thank you Mr Bradford, and Mr Lord.

Tim| 11.24.09 @ 2:27PM

Yes, but could they paint with all the colors of the wind?

Anyone who has seen the Disney film knows that it was Greed, not God that brought them here.

Paul D| 11.24.09 @ 4:02PM

Not that I'm any fan of the Disney version of History, but the Jamestown colony WAS founded on Greed not God.

But that is why it was such a disaster for the first 30 years of its existence.

The original settlers were adventurers and gold seekers who had no skill in farming or husbandry. As a result they were dependent upon completely erratic supply shipments from England and were incapable of taking care of their own needs. In desperation, the Jamestown colonists stole corn from the Indians and as a result things went down hill from there. You historians know the Jamestown colony suffered massacre after massacre during the ensuing years and thousands of the colonists died from disease. One source I read says that of the approximately 40,000 Jamestown colonists who tried to make a go of it from 1607 to 1637, 30,000 of them died.

But to the North, things went much better for the God-fearing Pilgrims and Puritans precisely because they were God-fearing.

Dixie Pixie| 11.24.09 @ 4:43PM

To: Tim

Try not to use Disney films as a knowledge base. Disney cherry-picks historical facts for amusement value. The facts are then given the Disney treatment to create a amusing film. After all you would not use a cartoon warthog for investment advice so why use a cartoon for historical insights.

Just for the record, the greedy mostly went on to the Spanish Main to raid for gold. It soon became obvious to European money-men the only things of value that could be extracted from North America was timber, fish and furs. All high bulk and low value goods. Gold and silver raiding and / or trade had much higher profit margins by several orders of magnitude. North American Indians did not use either as they did not have sources of the metals.

It was the tobacco trade which started large scale investment in the New World. Tobacco requires farmers which required resettlement of English and Scottish farmers. Tobacco traded in London generated the profits to create more tobacco farming. More farming meant more incoming setters. Thus was America settled.

The Puritans got the glory by being the first successful colonists. Faith in God saw them through the difficulties of being the first. It was the Moon Shot of the day. Be proud of them. Very few today could match their courage and dedication.

Robert Pinkerton| 11.24.09 @ 6:50PM

"It was the tobacco trade which started large scale investment in the New World." This sympathetic ex-smoker sees wrought-irony, cast-irony, and cobbles in rolled sheet-irony in that, given the popularity of as-if "Nurenburg laws" against tobacco-smoking and us tobacco-smokers. (Us? I may have discontinued the practice in operation, but I have not abandoned solidarity with those who continue to do so - and I acknowledge there are moments when - damn it! - I miss my pipe.)

Paul D| 11.24.09 @ 8:51PM

Tobacco is a very labor intensive crop.

So tobacco also required slaves.

Thus was slavery introduced into America.

Dixie Pixie| 11.26.09 @ 3:59PM

Actually, It would be the Spanish who brought slavery to the New World.

Aan Brooks| 11.24.09 @ 4:16PM

Puritans were as pigheaded as German protestants.

But they did build this country, just as the Germans invented the V1 and V2. So let's be THANKFUL.

Alan Brooks| 11.24.09 @ 4:17PM

that is, Puritans started this nation.

JimE| 11.24.09 @ 5:57PM

Great to see the "hate America " crowd is alive and doing well. Funny how they neverr critcize the cult of islam.

Rank and File| 11.25.09 @ 1:31AM

Thank you Mr. Lord. You wrote a very timely and illustrative piece. The Puritans wanted to practice their religion and in England, they were limited in their ability to do so. That fact is indesputable. Whether they were perfect stewards of their particular Christian mantle is another issue. We should honor the courage of William Bradford and the many thousands who ventured out to a largely unknown land, in order to live an increasingly independent life, free from the despotic rule of monarchy and societal fate. Until any one of us can be so bold as to board a 17th-century wooden ship, bound for a 60-plus day voyage to an undeveloped and distant land, we had best school our thoughts of ridicule and criticism. Freedom of religion, press, to bear arms, to own a home, and seek out your own destiny -- that is what Mr. Bradford imperfectly helped to effectuate. Be thankful.

Margie| 11.25.09 @ 12:22PM

Amen to that. Count me among the thankful. To God through His only begotten Son, Jesus Christ, who began His work through and by the forebears of our freedom, by their brave setting out to this great new land of opportunity! And how great it is! And He continues working through all of those who fight for that same freedom. We know that "freedom isn't free." And I am thankful to all of our fighting men and women in our Armed Forces all over the world too, because without them where would we be?
God bless America!

Yosemeti Sam| 11.25.09 @ 1:40AM

It's oh so simple - courage is as courage does.

With religiosity as fortitude.

Pilgrims had it in their blood. Washington
had it in his blood. Lincoln ....

Not to be confused with the swampland LMSMs'
irreligious primal ethos based on ink blood.

Dixie Pixie| 11.25.09 @ 3:18AM

To: Yosemeti Sam

WTF is LMSM”s

I am damn proud to count the Puritans among my honorable ancestors.
They went to the New World knowing they would die there.
That is the definition of courage.
The Puritans were the definition of Faith in God.
We would do well to honor their memory this Thanksgiving Day.

Dave| 11.25.09 @ 6:30AM

Thank you, Jeffrey Lord, for a very inspiring and timely article.

Yosemeti Sam| 11.25.09 @ 9:52AM

" LMSMs' " :

L = Leftist
M=Main
S= Street
M=Media
s= plural denotation
'= possessive denotation

"WTF" ?

Indeed!

Typicalwhitewoman| 11.27.09 @ 1:55PM

Your use of "LMSMs" is just plain ridiculous. Are you trying to communicate with the rest of us or try to set yourself apart by using language no one understands.

We all know what MSM is...adding the "L" for Lefty is superflouous because we already know they're all commie bastards. Plus, adding the "s" is stupid because it's already plural.
Life is hard enough, w/o you making a simple communication more difficult while trying to pretend you're smarter than every one else.

Margie| 11.25.09 @ 11:43AM

They were about freedom. And thanks to them, and because of their faith in God, we still have ours. "Where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is freedom." 2 Cor. 3:15. And as long as we're still willing to fight for it, we won't lose it.

A friend sent me this 1948 cartoon. Check this out:
http://nationaljuggernaut.blog.....-1948.html

Richard Baker| 11.25.09 @ 12:16PM

Don't think that our pansy population could handle the deprivation and sacrifice that these folks suffered and all for Religious Freedom. I see most of the Americans I run into and wonder how we'll move forward in history. God Save the United States. We need His help and guidance as much as the Pilgrims did.

Margie| 11.29.09 @ 12:20AM

You're right. what kind of suffering do we have in America? Perhaps if one cannot buy that I phone, or that BMW. Or imagine just having to go without one meal out of three in a day. Or maybe it's getting stuck out in the rain, where I've heard people curse God.
Better to wake up now and prepare for the tribulation that is coming, and before the last trumpet of God sounds, because He is indeed returning soon.
Read Mt. 24!

Captainchaos| 11.25.09 @ 3:59PM

"Just what is it they accomplished that enables their literal and figurative descendants to spend a day chowing down on turkey and pumpkin pies after hours of parades and football games? How hard was this to do? What happened as they did this? In particular, for those Americans caught up in the howling winds of recession, the old true tale is perhaps a bit of perspective."

Is anyone REALLY interested in precisely what they accomplished? I'll assume so, and tell you: None less than life's most basic function, the propagation and expansion of their people in furtherance of their ethnic genetic interests. What a proud moment it was, and what a tragedy it will be, when, if present trends persist, the dispossession of European Man will be complete, and he will cease to exist as such. And why is that? Because, utilizing certain historical set pieces and ideologies (e.g., Frankfurt School social criticism), the very virtue of European-derived peoples to continue to exist at all has been ruthlessly pathologized.

Is it not so? It will be interesting to see if responses to my comment tend to confirm or disconfirm my contention.

ATLmedia| 11.25.09 @ 6:54PM

Best written story I've ever seen on AS!
The commentary...not so much.
Remember Jefferson (& many other FFathers)despised religions influence on government (not belief in god however, as most were Diests)-in fact
TJ didn't mention his Presidency on his own tombstone.Much prouder in fact was he of his authorship of The Statute Of Virginia For Religious Freedom -that, was noted on his tombstone.&...he was quite proud of starting Americas' first religion free university -UVA.
>He mentioned that to0, on the tombstone.

Richard Baker| 11.25.09 @ 7:28PM

ATLmedia:
As a Virginian, I suggest you read what Mr. Jefferson actually said about Jesus and Christianity. I'd also suggest you read the writings of the Founding Fathers regarding the same. This canard is constantly dragged out to diminish these gentleman and Christianity as a basis for the founding of our nation. What they were against was a state religion such as the Church of England which was an Henry VIII creation against the Pope. UVA was started as the first non-church affiliated university which is quite different from your insinuation. Do your homework, sir, and stop trying to diminish what these men actually believed. Mr. Jefferson was not the one dimensional personality you described.

ATLmedia| 11.25.09 @ 8:30PM

Well, not exactly.
TJ actually went thru the trouble of re-writing the enire bible, sans references to Jesus divinity AND all the miracles (which he discounted wholeheartedly) to present a history w/ good philosophy, but w/o blind faith. Very modern,
scientific approach, no?

Richard Baker| 11.26.09 @ 12:22AM

READ his numerous and voluminous statements regarding Christianity. Don't web surf for disconnected bits. READ his thoughts in their entirety. I have and you can, as well.

Richard L.A. Schaefer| 11.26.09 @ 2:43AM

Some have noted that the North preferred the story of Plymouth Rock over the southern colony of Jamestown. Attributing greed as the Jamestown motive may be a left-over of that in today's postings. Rush Limbaugh annually cites how capitalism and private property is what saved the Puritans, as citizens became more motivated. Of course, Max Weber argued for a lay version of monasticism in the Calvinist work ethic, where, ironically, a religion that stressed salvation by faith alone brought in good works by the back door with the motive that material success helped the person know whether the person was saved or not. And abstemious habits leading to reinvestment also promoted prospersity. Note that Jefferson, supposedly so scientific, accepted the junk science of phrenology, because it supported his view that blacks were inferior and born to be slaves (a kind of echo of Aristotle). It was Washington whose character was shaped by the lesson books written by the Jesuits; thus America's character was shaped by the Jesuits both by the example of the Jesuit-shaped Washington and by the instructions on character he wrote that were rooted in Jesuit ideas. And Catholics in Maryland and Quakers in Pennsylvania made special contributions to U.S. religious liberty. Later, because government schools were Protestant, Catholics started their own. The bigot and failed Presidential candidate Blaine also failed to get a constitutional amendment to ban aid to religious schools, though his successes in some states mean that his bigoted ideas still prevail in some states. Justice Black gave weight on the federal level to this anti-Catholic bigotry. Fr. Andrew Greeley also noted that Justice Douglas' decision that there could be aid to religious colleges (many Protestant), but not to religious high schools and grade schools (many of them Catholic) cited an anti-Catholic and prejudiced book from the circle of Protestants United for the Separation of Church and State. Recall that Arthur Schlesinger said that anti-Catholicism is the last respectable prejudice. Recall that Schlesinger also debunked the stereotypes of Puritans. He noted that a significant percentage of Puritan brides were pregnant. What Puritans did is basically invent the idea of romantic love between a husband and wife (unlike the different more common view de Rougemont documented about the Middle Ages of romantic love between a married man and his unmarried wife or the other way around; and unlike the Arab motto about getting kids from your wife; sex from your paramour or concubine; and friendship from your male love). Schlesinger also noted that Pilgrim clothing was much more flamboyant than the stereotype. JFK erred in saying his religion wouldn't affect his political ideas and decisions, as Msgr. George Higgins pointed out. Romney and Obama rejected this and said that, of course, their religion would affect their political ideas and decisions.

Captainchaos| 11.26.09 @ 3:48AM

Any explication of the Puritans would be incomplete without mentioning the slide of their once fierce moralism into the flaccid pusillanimity that is Unitarianism - which, for many, is the gateway to secular humanism. Secular humanism, the state of the advanced decay of Classical Liberalism, defined by deracinated cosmopolitanates weened on the delusion of self authoriality and the unfettered will.

Interesting that, capitalism and Marxism are, really, two sides of the same coin. How so? Well, in both systems people(s) are considered interchangeable cogs in the machine of the maximization of economic production, and , both seem to have the annoying tendency of facilitating the concentration of wealth in a few hands and the centralization of power in same.

I mean, New York financier Jacob Schiff did give Comrade Trotsky $20 million to further the Bolshevik revolution. And, of course, it was none other than Larry Summers, former president of Harvard, who facilitated the Russian transition to "capitalism" in the early 90s so that the Russian people could be raped for the second time in the 20th century. The names change, but those injuring our people remain the same.

Of course, bad Putin put a stop to all that, but that is why he is such a bad man, no?

Dixie Pixie| 11.26.09 @ 3:35PM

To: CaptainChaos
No
Putin is a Russian Patriot. He is tying to deal with a post-collapse and splintered Russia.
What does he have to do with Pre-American Puritanism I fail to see the connection.

victor| 11.28.09 @ 10:18PM

Putin is Ex-KGB and KGB at the same time.
Still a Communist in Proletariat's clothing.
He is only interested in Power and Keeping Same.
Much as Obama and his Forty Thieves are.
He is "permitting" the people to have some Capitalism as long as he controls the Means of Production and maintains control of the Natrual Resources: Oil, Gas, Diamonds, Precious Metals and whatnot.

Moby Froll| 11.26.09 @ 7:32AM

In the Name of Allah the Most Merciful,

A heretical syllogism of sorts from your favorite left-wing jihadist (as if there were any other kind).

Premise One: Anyone who does not live up to his own standards entirely is hypocritical. (~L --> H)

Premise Two: The Puritans did not live up to their own standards entirely. (~L)

Conclusion: Therefore, the Purtians were hypocritical. (H, via Modus Ponens)

Premise One: Anything that is founded by hypocrites is evil. (F --> E)

Premise Two: The US was founded by hypocrites. (F)

Conclusion: Therefore, the US is evil. (E)

Your own syllogistic logic dictates that this is so, Infidels! Do not argue with me! Take it up with Aristotle and the Stoic Logicians!

In the meantime, submit! ("Submission," not "peace," being the true meaning of "Islam.")

Welcome the coming cacophonous Caliphate (if you'll pardon the alliteration)!

Your Washington Monument will become a minaret!

Calls to Prayer will be heard on the Mall!

The new national mottos under the Caliphate???

"Allahu Akbar!!!"

"Resistance is futile."

And, finally, "We are of peace . . . always!"

Praised by the One True God, Allah the Most Merciful, and his Last and Greatest Prophet, Mohammad (peace be upon him)

Allahu Akbar!!!

I am an inverted Moby (http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=moby) and a Froll, to boot (http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=froll).

Otis, My Man!| 11.26.09 @ 9:38AM

Oh Moby, you saucy Saracen you!

Dixie Pixie| 11.26.09 @ 4:55PM

To: Molly Froll

Try to stay away from anything involving logical computation.
Garbage in equals Garbage out. Doubling down only squares the errors.
As a joke it was pretty good mockery of Aristotle logic.

As for your Muslim riff, try this on for size::::
Heavily armed NFL Robots connected through a satellite / server array to multi-platform gaming systems so any gamer or geek can play the new electronic game “Shoot a Wahhabi for Christ”

Stand-off warfare as a pay-for play gaming service.

We have not yet begun to fight electronically logically.

Midwest| 11.26.09 @ 8:02AM

Ah yes, you have to love how followers of Islam burn down half of a town when a non believer is accused of missappropriate sexual contact with one of is pepubecent offspring, Yet its very own history is quoted that its own profit did just that vary thing! In what culture in the world is a 54 year old man allowed to marry a 6 year old girl????

Captainchaos| 11.26.09 @ 1:24PM

The proposition that Islam per se, and not the Third World peoples whom swamp our ancestral Europe, is the true threat is risible. According to the research of Richard Lynn, the populations that make up the bulk of Muslims, North Africans, Arabs and South Asians, have a mean group IQ in the low to mid 80s - so even they are not such a terribly formidable threat. Men like Niall Ferguson and Mark Steyn are certainly willing to comment on the issue of the Islamization of Europe, without offering any real solutions, aside from the exhortation for Europeans to breed more and depend on the nanny state less - which, as I said, are not really solutions at all. It is not realistic that Europeans can, or will, out-compete Third Worlders in a birthing competition, and to be frank, why should they have to - in the lands that have been theirs lo these thousands of years. No, all Ferguson and Steyn will do is cluck their tongues at the dreadfulness of it all, that, and rail against 'right-wing extremists' who are the only one's that will offer their people life and not death.

What will serious men that love their people do? Simply, leave none of the devil's handiwork in place; not in our land, and not in our blood. All that have come amongst us will be bidden leave, or else, our people will die - and that is intolerable. After all, the people of the West never consented to be replaced by alien peoples in their own lands, and are therefore not obliged to abide it. It was power that delivered these aliens to us, and it is power that will free us of them.

Jane| 11.27.09 @ 8:44AM

I am the 10th generation direct descendant of William Bradford.He was a great man.

Bri| 11.28.09 @ 11:29AM

Jane,
Congratulations. I feel, after reading the journals and letters of the pilgrims, that there is no greater group of people to live on the face of the planet. Individuals try to fit the Separatists into our world view, which is a historical fallacy. William Bradford was a great man. He, Edward Winslow and Stephen Hopkins dealt with the indians in a way that has never been seen since. They were friends and allies and brought peace to the whole entire region for 50 years. They did NOT force indians to worship as they did. There was a common respect for life and people. They were NOT the Puritans. (Just the use of that word shows a complete misunderstanding of history). They overcame incredible persecution. Most people commenting on this blog would not have the courage to face what the Separatists faced, starting in England. People today are controlled by fear. The thing I see, from reading the actual journals, and not just commentaries, is that these people were led by God. No one can face the difficulties with such courage and experience so many miracles and be without the hand of God. From the safe passage, to the rescue of Howland, to falling on the only unclaimed land on the coast, to the miracle of Squanto, and the list goes on. . .one cannot read these experiences and think of the Pilgrims as I have read in the above mind-numbing negativisms.
William Bradford was a great man. I challenge anyone who thinks otherwise to actually read his 400 page journal. And read A Mourt's Relation and Good News from New England before you make any uneducated comments online.

Margie| 11.28.09 @ 8:17PM

Your post is the best. Thanks so much for taking the time to say the truth. The intellectual elite don't care for the truth. And they despise those who speak it. But in fact, God most times uses the lowest among us to do His will. Like He used our fellow Pilgrims.
"But God chose the foolish things of the world that the wise might be shamed, and God chose the weak things of the world so that He might shame the strong things. And God chose the low-born of the world, and the things despised, and the things that are not, so that He might nullify the things that are." 1 Cor. 1:27&28;.

Captainchaos| 11.28.09 @ 11:17PM

For anyone still in the dark as to just who raped the Russian people, in 1917, and to this day, this article in the Jewish Forward should be of interest.

http://www.forward.com/articles/119191/

Excerpts:

"In his lively introduction of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu at the recent General Assembly in Washington, Leonid Nevzlin reminded the audience just how unexpected and unusual a role this was for him.

[...]

His prominent speech — which earned him a standing ovation by the collected leadership of the American Jewish federation world — was the privilege given to him as international chairman of the yearly gathering and its major sponsor. And though the exact figure has not been disclosed, organizers of the G.A. have told the Forward that his money played a significant part in making the three-day event happen.

[...]

The speech represented a crowning moment of what has been a complete rebranding effort by Nevzlin, 50, erasing his past as a Russian oligarch who just narrowly escaped jail, convicted in absentia last year in a Moscow courtroom to life in prison for ordering the murder of five people. A recent article about him in Forbes magazine — which estimated his wealth in 2004 to be $2 billion — was headlined, “The One Who Got Away.”

[...]

Now, with a very visible onstage handshake with the Israeli prime minister and a visit with President Obama at the White House as one of 50 invited guests during the G.A., Nevzlin is effectively positioning himself to become a philanthropic force in the United States, as well.

The only hint in Nevzlin’s speech that he has a past that still hounds him was his mention of Mikhail Khodorkovsky, the onetime head of the Yukos oil company, who is now sitting in a Siberian jail, serving a nine-year prison sentence. Nevzlin was Khodorkovsky’s deputy, and together with him he held the controlling shares in Yukos, a multibillion-dollar enterprise that made them both very rich and powerful in the 1990s.

[...]

Not long after Nevzlin left, the Russian authorities charged him with a whole range of criminal offenses. He was said to have contracted out Yukos’s head of security — who is now serving a 24-year jail sentence and has denied both Nevzlin’s guilt and his own — to kill individuals who were getting in the way of Yukos’s business dealings. Among the dead were Valentina Korneyeva, a Moscow businesswoman who owned a building in central Moscow that Yukos’s holding firm, Menatap, wanted to buy, and Vladimir Petukhov, mayor of Nefteyugansk, where Yukos’s largest production unit was based.

Twice the Russian authorities tried to extradite Nevzlin, but both times Israel’s State Attorney’s Office denied the request, citing insufficient evidence. In 2006, the argument even reached Israel’s High Court of Justice, which concurred with the State Attorney’s Office.

[...]

Meanwhile, his life in Israel has revolved largely around his philanthropic efforts. He set up an institute on Eastern European and Russian Judaism at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, and has funded many projects through his charity, NADAV— named after himself and two other Yukos shareholders, Vladimir Dubov and Mikhail Brudno. Run by his daughter, it tries to confront what Nevzlin said in his G.A. speech was the biggest threat facing the Jewish world: “A failure to articulate a single, global Jewish identity.”"

I hope you are getting the picture now. The "Chosen people" carrying on like Sicilian gangsters. Nevzlin, who ought to be put up against the wall in front of a firing squad, is welcomed by our president. And what does Nevzlin say is the greatest threat to the Jewish people? “A failure to articulate a single, global Jewish identity.” LOL! Au contraire, it seems as if they already have that one covered. No doubt, much of his money goes to "charities" that attempt to subvert the political and organic life of Eastern European peoples - as is the case with Soros.

Just what is going on here? Jewish ethnic aggression against host societies, with Israel serving has a base camp and haven for rank gangsterism and gangsters.

Our nation, once a city on a hill, as become a nearly exhausted ember on a dung heap. And the best many can do is worship the ones that wish to destroy us. It is a depraved insanity.

Captainchaos| 11.28.09 @ 11:56PM

I'm at a loss to understand just how White Christians have been duped into serving the ones who HATE their people. The ones who call us cattle (goyim), and our women whores (shiksa).

I'm mean, the Old Testament CLEARLY does not approve of the inter-marriage of different peoples. Babel was destroyed. Christ first saved his own people, and Paul was only tasked with spreading the Gospel to the other nations once Jews had been found wanting for righteousness.

Babel will once again fall, as it has every time before.

victor| 11.29.09 @ 2:28AM

Once again, the Dark Shadows of Fascism are appearing under the guise of "concern" for our Heritage and our Culture.
Jawohl, Mein Führer, Ich verstehe!
What next?
The Protocols of the Elders of Toddard?
Taking the word of Leftist, Socialist Unionists?
And way to go with accepting the word of Putin's Department of Injustice's word that Leonid Nevzlin was guilty of being Jewish and nothing more.
One guy is rotting in prison and one guy is in exile.
And for what? Being rich and being Jewish?

There's only one thing to do with you Anti-Semites and Nonnies:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v.....re=related

BTW Cap'n, how about a couple of choruses of the Horst Wessel Song, eh?
Let me start you off:
The flag high! The ranks tightly closed!
SA marches with a calm, firm pace.
Comrades whom the Red Front and reactionaries shot dead
March in spirit within our ranks.

I'm sure you and Toddy and Wesley know the words in German too, don't you?

Nothing you said can be proven.

Richard Baker| 11.29.09 @ 8:43AM

Victor:
Sehr gut!

Captainchaos| 11.29.09 @ 12:26PM

Victor,

Your "criticisms" are as facile as they fatuous. You know nothing, literally nothing, of what you speak about.

"Once again, the Dark Shadows of Fascism are appearing under the guise of "concern" for our Heritage and our Culture."

For you, buzzwords. I'll assume, for the sake of your own coherence, that by heritage, you mean blood, and by culture, you mean the works wrought by our blood. I'd like to preserve our culture too, but that pales in comparison to the imperative to preserve our blood. Get this, your child's finger painting is an example of culture, but what is more important to you, preserving that finger painting or your child? The child, obviously. Now, if your child were so genetically altered that he were no longer himself, he would have in effect ceased to exist as such, no? Yes. And no less a people, I speak of miscegenation, the genocide of the bed chamber, total racial destruction. Do you honestly believe there are no salient biological differences between Europeans and sub-Saharan Africans? You would be a fool to think otherwise.

In the real world, there is what is necessary to save our people from genetic annihilation.

"And way to go with accepting the word of Putin's Department of Injustice's word that Leonid Nevzlin was guilty of being Jewish and nothing more."

All things being equal, Victor, just why is it that you would take the word of a Jew over that of a White man? Ask yourself that question, you may not like the answer. But things are far from equal, now aren't they? Only not in the way you would have it.

"And for what? Being rich and being Jewish?"

No, for pursuing wealth and power in a way that injures those of European descent - to advance personal and Jewish interests at the expense of host societies. You want examples, both contemporary and past, and myriad, I shall give them, you have but to ask.

Here is one: Jews make up about 3% of the American population, yet, in 1998 made up around 25 - 35% of undergrads at Harvard. Whites made up around 25%. Now, Jews have a group average IQ that is ten points higher (110) than the European mean of 100. So, going by census data, we can say statistically that Whites with IQs over 130 outnumber Jews with same by 7 to 1. What will you say, victor, that Jews merely work THAT much harder? LOL! Get real, it is clearly the result of ethic nepotism and networking. Something that Jews certainly do not approve of in Gentiles, we're all just supposed to be "individuals," however delusional such a prospect may in the real world is.

I could go on all day, and refute you utterly, but you get the picture - one can hope.

Captainchaos| 11.29.09 @ 12:45PM

A bit more (I just couldn't resist):

“In 2001, then-labor and social affairs minister Shlomo Benizri said: “I just don’t understand why a restaurant needs a slant-eye to serve me my meal.”[6] Even Jews of Chinese descent suffer harassment and poor treatment by immigration police.[2]

Employers have also been known to impose humiliating restrictions on Chinese workers in their employment contracts. In 2003, a report by The Guardian stated that Chinese workers at an unspecified company had been required to agree not to have sex with or marry Israeli women, including prostitutes, as a condition of getting a job. An anonymous Israeli lawyer, however, claims that these contracts only appear legal but could be proven illegal if challenged in court.[7]”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C....._in_Israel

“Slant-eye,” and this from a guy named Shlomo, why John Smith should sacrifice his peoplehood on the alter of the Holocaust is a mystery to me.

And if you liked the first one, you’ll like this even more:

“Couples not considered Jewish according to Jewish law will be able to tie the knot in a civil marriage, following a consensus on a bill reached Wednesday between Justice Minister Daniel Friedmann and Sephardi Chief Rabbi Shlomo Amar.

This is the first time that the religious establishment has given the go-ahead to a civil marriage and divorce procedure. However, the bill drafted by Friedmann and Amar, will be restricted to cases in which both spouses are not considered Jewish according to Jewish law (halakha).”

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/883612.html

My G-d, now people in Israel who are not even considered Jewish — according to Jewish law — can be married. How progressive.

victor| 11.29.09 @ 6:15PM

"My G-d, now people in Israel who are not even considered Jewish — according to Jewish law — can be married. How progressive."

A self-hating Jew, How Utterly Absurd that you would try to tell the truth to anyone.
How about telling the truth to YOURSELF first.

Richard Baker| 11.29.09 @ 5:09PM

Victor:
The ether is being disturbed. Wonder why the disruption of the static is occurring?

victor| 11.29.09 @ 6:16PM

Perhaps you need to buy Reynold's Wrap rather than the cheap stuff.

Captainchaos| 11.29.09 @ 7:33PM

"A self-hating Jew, How Utterly Absurd that you would try to tell the truth to anyone."

Errrr, tell him what he's lost Johnny! I'm not a Jew. I'm Dutch-English-Scottish-Kraut, er, Nordic. What, a White man with some verbal facility shocks you? Racist!

"How about telling the truth to YOURSELF first."

Calm down, dude, I'm just the messenger. I know that stiff drink of truth I just gave you was bracing, but you've got to learn to hold your liquor, if you are to be any use to your race; and yourself.

"The ether is being disturbed. Wonder why the disruption of the static is occurring?"

Uh, cuz our people are dying. What, you think everyone of us is going to continue on in a haze of status seeking, self righteous, self induced lobotomization like you? Nope.

victor| 11.29.09 @ 8:45PM

CapitanKaos
" "My G-d,"

If you're not Jewish, why the affectation of a Jewish prohibition against writing God's name, eh?
If you're not Jewish, why were you implying that you were?
If you cannot be honest about what you are or who you are, there is no point to any debate.
That would mean anything that you say would be subject to interpretation. We have enough of those around here as it is, we do not need anymore.

" if you are to be any use to your RACE; and yourself."

Race? I don't think of myself in terms of RACE, I leave it you Aryans to be consumed with it.
Or to quote another of your compadres:
"the whole White race, the Western race can be submerged by other coloured races which are multiplying at a rate unknown in our race."
Benito Mussolini

As a Christian, I am more concerned with your soul and your possible self-intended destination.

2 Peter 3:9
"The Lord is not slack concerning his promise as some men count slackness but is longsuffering to us-ward not willing that any should perish but that all should come to repentance"

Captainchaos| 11.29.09 @ 8:32PM

You so called "Christians" are going to have a lot to answer for in a place that is hotter than the surface of Mercury one day. You do not worship God; you worship Israel, you worship the Jews, you worship your own status and mammon, i.e., you worship the devil.

weight| 11.30.09 @ 4:13AM

First of all, I wouldn't trust ANY bill punched out by the idiots in congress today.

ep car| 12.11.09 @ 1:16AM

That would mean anything that you say would be subject to interpretation. We have enough of those around here as it is, we do not need anymore.

gp car
camera car

www.huntingnikedunks.com| 4.2.10 @ 9:16PM

www.huntingnikedunks.com

http://www.51ghd.com| 4.3.10 @ 2:12AM

The ghdhair styler is one of the hottest beauty products on the market. From the UK, Australia and United States, GHD hair straighteners get rave reviews from consumers who are looking for something better than cheap, quick-fix straighteners.
Thousands of companies now offer the GHD IV around the world; how do you know if you’re buying the real thing? Follow our checklist to authenticate your cheap ghd straightener:
Buy from a respected retailer – Products sold from overseas or “second-hand” sites are frequently counterfeit because there is no accountability. Buy from a reputable merchant located in your home country.

www.juicyihandbag.com| 4.3.10 @ 7:34AM

Juicy couture handbags are among the brands which have gained a great repute over a longer period of time.The quality and material used for their manufacturing is up to the mark and has no match. The most attractive thing of JC purses are their reasonable prices, which makes www.juicyihandbag.com them liked by people belonging to all classes. These are easy to be purchased from online retail stores. You have the advantage to check the available variety on internet and then buy the item of your choice through the credit card. It would be good to make a phone call at the company number before making the transaction, in order to confirm the authentication of selected retailer.

www.in-watch.com| 4.3.10 @ 7:37AM

Being a proud owner of a watch is a wondrous thing that many take for granted. No one remembers back when things were simple and they had to call "time and temperature" to get an accurate time . Now certain devices run on their own with no batteries what so ever and some get updates from satellites so that the time is always perfect.Looking back on all of the famous inventors or the wrist watch, it makes you happy to know that the item located on your wrist is truly a miracle and wonder of the world. From the first watch with its round face to the tiny ring watches that sit delicately on your finger, they are truly a piece of history.Dating back to the 1800s up until now, watches have constantly have been moving forward and keeping us in time with the rest of the world. If you are looking to find out more about the history of the watch www.in-watch.com then you will want to look to the founder's of this wondrous invention. It is amazing to see how the watch has evolved and the parts get smaller with each new watch on the market. There is a watch for every lifestyle and wardrobe so you can be stylish or simple anytime of the day or night.

qwer| 4.23.10 @ 8:49PM

Poptropica
ArenaBetting.com dukung fair play FIFA world cup AFSEL 2010