Print this post Print this post

At Midnight, a Pumpkin

1,892 words

There is something about a royal wedding which tugs at the heartstrings of this old Brit. I’m too young to remember the wedding of the Queen, but the pageantry of Diana’s brought tears to my eyes while, sadly, the wedding of Prince Harry to his divorcee only brings to mind Richard Kelly Hoskins’ Vigilantes of Christendom, an obscure book on the perils of interracial marriage.

Hoskins is descended from old-stock Virginians who survived both the Indian Wars and Negro emancipation. He is also an old-style biblical literate horrified at the ongoing adulteration of his race. His thinking is in alignment with Strong’s Concordance, which defines man as anyone showing blood in the face. Anyone else is a stranger. Strong’s interpretation may have been the general consensus in revolutionary America, when the Declaration of Independence was written, for even while in rebellion against the motherland, the American colonials recognized the British enemy as our British brethren, although they had little good to say about the Red Indians, who were described as the merciless Indian savages.

Hoskins taught that race-mixing would boomerang back on society as God used the mulattoes to destroy Christians when they turned their backs on him. Hoskins gave the example of Santa Domingo, where in 1789 a wealthy group of mulattoes spearheaded the genocide of the whites. Although the mulattoes owned a third of the land and a quarter of the slaves, they preferred the company of their own kind. Another example he cited was the Mexican revolution of 1910,[1] in which the whites were slaughtered.

The vague feeling lingers that the British throne is supposed to be the symbol of all that is best in British life, and that there are enough Americans of British stock from which to choose a wife. Prince Harry is a product of his time more than he is a child of royal breeding. His grandmother is the supreme leader of the Church of England, a title bequeathed on her by the Act of Supremacy of 1534 and 1558. One of the primary duties of the national Church was to protect the sanctity of the family, and it was successful at this until recent times.

Edward VIII abdicated not because he was to marry an American, but because she was a divorcee. The Queen’s sister, Princess Margaret, was forbidden to marry Group Captain Townsend because he, too, was divorced, and in 1992 the divorced Princess Anne had to travel to Scotland to be married by the liberal Church of Scotland. In the intervening years a change of attitude crept in, and on February 11, 2018, the Palace announced that Prince Harry would marry his divorcee in St. George’s chapel, and that “[t]he Dean of Windsor will conduct the service and the Archbishop of Canterbury will officiate as the couple make their vows.” The dark forces the Queen warned Diana’s butler about seem to have had their evil way with both the throne and the Church.

The Queen’s personal life is exemplary, but in matters of state, in which admittedly a constitutional monarch cannot involve herself, one can perfectly understand why Andrew Fraser would refer to her as “Elizabeth the Useless.”[2] Roy Taylor of the Christian Identity subculture is more understanding, and through his interpretation of the song “Miss American Pie” shows how the Church was stolen long before Elizabeth ascended the throne.

The prevailing opinion of constitutional experts is that there is no question of the Queen not passing a bill which has been passed by both Houses of Parliament. In 1990, King Baudouin of Belgium let it be known that he would not sign into law a bill for abortion. He was declared unfit to rule for a day while the bill was passed, and then the following day he was declared fit to rule again. In 2007, the Grand Duke of Luxembourg actually withheld Royal Assent on a bill regarding euthanasia, and as a result his royal powers were removed, although he was allowed to remain as head of state. No doubt the same fate would befall the British throne if it dared speak out on behalf of the British people. The only duty left to the throne is to be a symbol of British greatness – but Harry is hell-bent on destroying even that.

Hoskins is convinced that the Bible is a manuscript for racial and national survival, and that anyone who would marry a stranger, as he regards aliens, is a renegade worthy of death. His reasoning may seem quaint in our post-Christian age, but Prince Harry’s grandmother not only sits on the throne, but is the supreme head of the Church of England, and one day his brother William will sit on that very same throne. The future King will have a mulatto for his sister-in-law. Hoskins thinks that a man married to a colored woman is untrue to himself and therefore is likely to be untrue to the rest of human society.[3] Prince Harry in his high office won’t be a benefit to the people he is supposed to serve and of which he is a product. But whether one regards Hoskins’ attitude as quaint or not, “[t]he British Monarchy and the Anglican Church are the last living links to the archetypical forms of Anglo-Saxon bioculture.”[4]

Hoskins’ attitude toward racial preservation reflects the ancient morals of the West, which had reigned for centuries. “The feeling against miscegenation was present from the earliest times, and it was shared by both the Government and the Church.”[5] Hoskins avoided the trap of thinking that a whites-only country would automatically be a paradise, since he also believed that the law required the execution of murderers and rapists “so that they wouldn’t reproduce and mix with the congregation, thereby in time making the rest like themselves. Failure to execute judgment develops a population that is descended from lawless people. Lawless people commit lawless acts.”[6] Hoskins believed that God made the different races, and in our case, for a thousand generations we have not allowed the criminal element amongst us to reproduce, whereas other races have developed theft and murder as a way of life. For someone to marry out of his race is to bring a thousand generations of lawlessness into our nation. Like breeds like.[7]

The seeds of destruction were planted in America virtually at its birth when in 1619 a Dutch ship offloaded twenty black slaves in Jamestown. Black strangers were being brought in through the back door while Americans were fighting Red savages at the front door on the frontier.[8] Quoting Bancroft’s History of the United States, Volume Five, Hoskins recounted how the colonial legislature passed laws prohibiting the importation of Negroes from Africa, but as George III was indebted to the moneylenders, he needed the money the slaves brought, and overruled any attempts to stop the practice.

Lothrop Stoddard, in his book The French Revolution in San Domingo, believed that slavery was an evil institution detrimental both to slave and master. Not only the slaves suffered but, as Kevin MacDonald put it, “controlling the slaves therefore required a sort of sociopathy on the part of whites.”[9] Stoddard described the whites of San Domingo as shady characters and opportunists out to make money without any moral scruples, and worse yet, “They are not a people but only a mass of individuals.”[10] Hoskins was keen that the whites in America would be a people, and for this reason was an enthusiastic supporter of biblical law to mold the nation, which he believed would allow America to avoid the fate of San Domingo, now better-known as Haiti.

Hoskins wrote that “even the emasculated KJV [King James Bible] which appeared in 1605 was reprinted in 1825 leaving out 14 more books called the Apocalypse.”[11] The reformers’ Geneva Bible was rewritten by removing the margin notes, and the last true Catholic Bible was the Reims Bible of 1633. Today, most Bibles that are printed and distributed contain only the New Testament, so that Christians are no longer familiar with those scriptures that were known by Jesus two thousand years ago. Hoskins was quite keen that his fellow American patriots would be familiar with these “missing” books, and especially Maccabees, which instructs the reader on the art of resistance to an occupying power.

The original Vigilante was the Israelite Phineas, whose story appeared in Numbers 25:6-13. The short version appears in Psalms 106:30, “Then stood up Phineas and executed judgment: and so the plague was stayed,”[12] but before Phineas could kill the man of Israel, Zimri, who was copulating with the stranger Cosbi, twenty-four thousand Israelite men died in the plague.[13] The story of Israel in Palestine and abroad has always been that if the laws are followed, all is well and the land prospers. If lawless rulers and lawless judges mock God’s law and refuse to enforce it, God punishes the land with pestilence and plague.[14] One can only speculate about the plagues of allergies, cardiovascular disease, diabetes, and the endless STDs haunting us today.

Old-fashioned as Hoskins’ take on scripture is, the real tragedy of Prince Harry’s marriage to a stranger is that it takes away the Britishness of our highest and most cherished symbol of all that is good and great in the British race at home and abroad. Equally tragic is that the Church has neglected to teach the boy his duties to his God and his nation. The changing attitude of the Church to divorce is one example of why Harry would not take anything it says as gospel. His own family was also seen to waver on the principle of divorce. Prince Harry was eight years old in 1992, when his divorced aunt had to travel to Scotland to be married. In 2005, his divorced father, Prince Charles, had to marry the Duchess of Cornwell in a civil ceremony, although the Church did bless their marriage afterwards. Nowadays, the Church of England has completely reversed itself[15] and will marry divorcees. It’s hardly surprising that Prince Harry is confused and can’t take the Church seriously, and is going to marry a stranger. Although to paraphrase St. Paul, he can see the obvious and should have more sense.

Phineas’ victim, Zimri, was born and raised in the time of Moses, when God was inculcating into the minds of the populace the basic rules of polite society. The laws and the penalties may not have changed in the ensuing centuries, but the priesthood certainly has. The tragedy of Prince Harry’s marriage to a stranger is the failure of the national Church to instill in the congregation the ancient values. The Church of England now hunts with the hounds and runs with the hares.[16] To reestablish the credibility of throne and altar, the Church needs to return to its roots and produce priests who believe enough in the God they preach about to tell Prince Harry to repent and sin no more – although it’s doubtful if even anyone in the Church remembers what it means.

 

Notes

[1] Richard Kelly Hoskins, Vigilantes of Christendom (Lynchburg, Va.: The Virginia Publishing Company, 1990), p. 199.

[2] Andrew Fraser, The WASP Question (London: Arktos, 2011), p. 340.

[3] Vigilantes of Christendom, p. 143.

[4] The WASP Question, p. 339.

[5] Lothrop Stoddard, The French Revolution in San Domingo (Wermod & Wermod, 2011), p. 47.

[6] Vigilantes of Christendom, p. 39.

[7] Vigilantes of Christendom, p. 40.

[8]  Vigilantes of Christendom, p. 176

[9] The French Revolution in San Domingo, p. xix.

[10] Ibid., p. xv.

[11] Vigilantes of Christendom, p. 434.

[12] Vigilantes of Christendom, p. 191.

[13] Numbers 25:8.

[14] Deuteronomy 28:15, 21.

[15] 1st Corinthians 14:8.

[16] Revelations 3:15, 16.

Related

13 Comments

  1. Posted April 14, 2018 at 12:49 pm | Permalink

    Sandy,
    Whats your thought on why Harry is marrying outside his race?
    You explained why he is marrying a divorcee and why it’s wrong for him marrying a divorcee and outside his race.

    • Sandy
      Posted April 16, 2018 at 4:23 pm | Permalink

      My thoughts? His marriage is a “sign of the times” and betrays the purpose of royalty. The term white privilege is thrown around these days quite loosely and in most cases unfairly but if anybody has had a life of privilege it is the royals. With the Muslims being added to the mix it is becoming painfully obvious that the multicultural society doesn’t work and if the authorities don’t begin to unwind the situation i think Europe is going to “blow up” and like a fire, once it starts, it will consume everything in its path and sadly, thanks to Prince Harry, the royals will not be blameless.

  2. Steve
    Posted April 7, 2018 at 9:50 am | Permalink

    I’m curious, as one who is fond of history, where would one procure an accurate translation of the Reims 1633 Bible?

    • Sandy
      Posted April 7, 2018 at 3:06 pm | Permalink

      I got mine from Michael Hoffman’s https://www.revisionisthistory.org/ But I have to warn you that its in old English which basically mean that instead of an f is an s. You get used to it.

  3. Adrian Davies
    Posted April 6, 2018 at 4:00 pm | Permalink

    Writing from a British perspective, I am always right royally (!) entertained by the extraordinary and incomprehensible fascination that the hideously vulgar soap opera, the “Windsors” (real name Saxe-Coburg-Gotha-Battenberg) exercises over foreigners.

    Prince Harry is a man of amiable character but limited intellectual gifts, whose foolish marriage to Princess Pushy is of no importance to anyone but the ill-matched couple. A younger son whose elder brother has two children and a third on the way is scarcely likely to be king.

    Princess Pushy may not be British, but then the royal family are not British either, a point well made in the old Jacobite song:

    “Wha the de’il hae we gotten for a king,
    But a wee, wee German Lairdie” (a petty German lord)

    The best that can be said of the monarchy is that it preserves an echo of a time when the institution meant something. The (fictional) Duke of Dorset put it rather well in Zuleika Dobson: “I admit that the Hanoverian Court is not much. Still, it is better than nothing.”

    Perhaps, but only just. The institution, which fulfills no discernible useful purpose, costs the country a fortune that might better be spent in other ways.

    Whether we should be better off with a royal family worthier of the name, the last chance of which was snuffed out, probably for ever, in 1745, or a more modern constitutional order, of the kind foreshadowed by Cromwell’s Commonwealth, is another question, but the present arrangements are scarcely satisfactory.

    As for objections to a divorced woman marrying in the Church of England, its founder was a disgusting syphilitic adulterer who put away his lawful wife Katherine to marry the intriguer and witch Anne Boleyn, whom he went on to murder less than three years later after he had tired of her, by trumping up very doubtful charges of adultery (the evidence for which was obtained by torture) and ludicrous charges of incest (for which there was no evidence at all).

    That dubious institution can scarcely claim to uphold the sanctity of marriage when it was founded on the dissolution of a royal marriage!

    • Sandy
      Posted April 7, 2018 at 3:15 pm | Permalink

      You mentioned the ’45. George 1st was a close cousin to the Stuarts. Bonnie Prince Charlie was born and died in Italy but he is still “one of oor aine.” I have a chart tracing the royal family back to Adam and Eve but even if I sent a copy to the editor I doubt if it would come over on the computer screen (Odin is included).

  4. Born Red Pilled
    Posted April 6, 2018 at 9:15 am | Permalink

    I wouldn’t mind hearing more from this writer! The royal family serves as a model for the apex of English social mores and sets the ideal social norms for the English people and other Europeans of discernment. This marriage is an obvious capitulation to social forces in favor of race mixing and breeding out the British people. How are other people—virtually everyone around me—so slave to social forces of media approbation? Why are they not helmsmen of their own ships? Could this mean I(we here) am a sociopath?

    The royal family seemed to be a redoubt of sanity. I learned that tony Blair was denied admission to the knights of the garter, a prestigious secret society to which every other pm has been admitted, because he entered the Iraq war against the queens disapproval. It seemed as though the royals “got it.”

    Of course the Old Testament is a codex for maintaining racial purity; it’s what gave us the most fanatically ethnocentric group in the history of creation with the mind/culture coevolution. But these ideas are adaptive; we are tribal animals. There is much wisdom in the preaxial age(when things got touchy feely) cultural arks which have come down to us.

    • Sandy
      Posted April 7, 2018 at 3:18 pm | Permalink

      Thanks. I hope to have a future article on King Arthur’s visit to America out by 2020!!!!

  5. BroncoColorado
    Posted April 6, 2018 at 4:07 am | Permalink

    According to conspiracy theorists Diana was ‘offed’ because she was either seriously contemplating marriage to Dodi or was already pregnant by him. An intolerable situation for the establishment who it is alleged advised the Queen of their intentions to which she reluctantly agreed. That fanciful reconstruction may be very far from the truth. If it does contain elements of truth we must question why the same establishment is now allowing the marriage of a member of the royal family to a ‘person of color’. The visible establishment figures are applauding Harry’s choice and fawning over his intended. Why? Was Harry told to marry a POC as a means of promoting even more miscegenation within Britain, it would appear to be so.

  6. BjornThorsønn
    Posted April 6, 2018 at 2:00 am | Permalink

    “Phineas’ victim, Zimri, was born and raised in the time of Moses, when God was inculcating into the minds of the populace the basic rules of polite society.”

    I know what you are referring to, and that disappoints me.

    Why should I know about Moses? I want to know more about my own people’s history, and not of some obscure group in the middle east three thousand years ago. The fact that this indoctrinated religion is so out of tune with the spiritual mind of the west, explains perfectly why it did not need much convincing before agreeing to bless this bastard marriage.
    When christianity was forced upon Europe, it conquered us by terror and forced baptism. But being a religion so unattached to what we truly are (even with a thousand years of adjustments), it renders us much more vulnerable to hedonistic conquest like this marriage.

    Hoskins had the best intentions on his mind, but applying a spiritual package that do not cherish your forefathers and -mothers (our race) and our true spiritual longing will at best just postpone the conquest.

    • Sandy
      Posted April 7, 2018 at 3:34 pm | Permalink

      Thank you for your comments. You have most accurately articulated why people reject Identity and Christianity and I hope I am not the only one who is grateful for that. Love it or hate it Christianity has been part of our culture for a long time and now that it is being used against us we are nor doing a very good job of defending ourselves. Hopefully a couple of future papers of mine will help address that.

  7. Joe
    Posted April 5, 2018 at 6:58 pm | Permalink

    Prince Harry has all of the traits of an Ashkenazi jew about him… from his kinky hair down to his preference for octaroons. I’d love to see a valid DNA test of the son-of-a-whore to prove me correct.

  8. Proofreader
    Posted April 5, 2018 at 6:10 pm | Permalink

    Prince Harry and Meghan Markle should be given a “republican marriage” à la Jean-Baptiste Carrier: they should be tied together and kicked off a boat to drown.

Post a Comment

Your email is never published nor shared.
 
Comments are moderated. If you don't see your comment, please be patient. If approved, it will appear here soon. Do not post your comment a second time.
 
Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>

*
*

Notify me of followup comments via e-mail. You can also subscribe without commenting.

    Kindle Subscription
  • Our Titles

    East and West

    Though We Be Dead, Yet Our Day Will Come

    White Like You

    The Homo and the Negro, Second Edition

    Numinous Machines

    The World in Flames

    Venus and Her Thugs

    Cynosura

    North American New Right, vol. 2

    You Asked For It

    More Artists of the Right

    Extremists: Studies in Metapolitics

    Rising

    The Importance of James Bond

    In Defense of Prejudice

    Confessions of a Reluctant Hater (2nd ed.)

    The Hypocrisies of Heaven

    Waking Up from the American Dream

    Green Nazis in Space!

    Truth, Justice, and a Nice White Country

    Heidegger in Chicago

    The End of an Era

    Sexual Utopia in Power

    What is a Rune? & Other Essays

    Son of Trevor Lynch's White Nationalist Guide to the Movies

    The Lightning & the Sun

    The Eldritch Evola

    Western Civilization Bites Back

    New Right vs. Old Right

    Lost Violent Souls

    Journey Late at Night: Poems and Translations

    The Non-Hindu Indians & Indian Unity

    Baader Meinhof ceramic pistol, Charles Kraaft 2013

    Jonathan Bowden as Dirty Harry

    The Lost Philosopher, Second Expanded Edition

    Trevor Lynch's A White Nationalist Guide to the Movies

    And Time Rolls On

    The Homo & the Negro

    Artists of the Right

    North American New Right, Vol. 1

    Forever and Ever

    Some Thoughts on Hitler

    Tikkun Olam and Other Poems

    Under the Nihil

    Summoning the Gods

    Hold Back This Day

    The Columbine Pilgrim

    Confessions of a Reluctant Hater

    Taking Our Own Side

    Toward the White Republic

    Distributed Titles

    Reuben

    The Node

    A Sky Without Eagles

    The Way of Men

    The New Austerities

    Morning Crafts

    The Passing of a Profit & Other Forgotten Stories

    Asatru: A Native European Spirituality

    The Lost Philosopher

    Impeachment of Man

    Gold in the Furnace

    Defiance