Deuteronomy Chapter 23 Star Chart: Clockwise from when a mongrel or half-breed is born and "shall not enter into the congregation of the (Shekinah) Lord" (23:2) "even to his tenth generation shall he not enter into the congregation of the (Shekinah) Lord" (23:2) is ten laps: first (30-year) generation 1/2; second generation 1/4; third generation 1/8; fourth generation 1/16; fifth generation 1/32; sixth generation 1/64; seventh generation 1/128; eighth generation 1/256; ninth generation 1/512; tenth generation 1/1024 or 300 years (3600°). God wants racial purity -- not an adulterated race. In Ezra 10:3 they "put away all the wives, and such as are born of them". In Nehemiah 13:3 "they separated from Israel all the mixed multitude".

A Mongrel Shall Not Enter the Congregation
Till His Tenth Generation

23:1 He that is (red radius) wounded in the (lunar) stones, or hath his privy member (Perseus) cut off, shall not enter into the congregation of the (Shekinah) Lord.

2 A bastard (mongrel) shall not enter into the congregation of the (Shekinah) Lord; even to his tenth generation shall he not enter into the congregation of the (Shekinah) Lord.

The definition of mamzer as “mongrel” is supported not merely by linguistic evidences but also by supplementary exegetical arguments. If the Deuteronomic law contained no wide and general prohibition on mongrelization, then the reformers Ezra and Nehemiah would have lacked a legal basis for applying their reforms to nations not enumerated in the Law itself. Only Ammonites and Moabites (Deut. 23:3-5) and Canaanites (Deut. 7:1-4) -- not Ashdodite (Philistine) women who also intermarried with Israelites (Neh. 13:23), nor "Egyptian" women who intermarried (Ezra 9). But "Egyptians" granted rights of assimilation into Israel, according to Deuteronomy 23:7-8 were different "Egyptians" than Ezra 9, for Hyksos and other Semites could be classified as "Egyptians", and Deuteronomy 23 describes them as kind hosts, which evidently is not describing the subset of those Hamite Misraim called "Egyptians" who brutally enslaved the Israelites. The best alternative to this racial interpretation of Deuteronomy 23:2 has various faults, leaving the mongrel interpretation as the most legitimate interpretation. Furthermore, we can look to the examples of Pharez and Jephthah (Judges 11:1) as counter-examples to fornication- and incest-based definitions of mamzer; Both examples are disproofs of those two non-mongrel definitions for mamzer. The mamzer of Deuteronomy 23:2 is indeed a mongrel, vindicating a Christian racial worldview. We are forbidden to adulterate the race. This scripture teaches segregation. Zechariah 9:6 uses the same word mamzer when it says “a mongrel race shall dwell in Ashdod.”

3 An Ammonite or Moabite (Gemini) shall not enter into the congregation of the (Shekinah) Lord; even to their tenth generation shall they not enter into the congregation of the Lord for ever:

4 Because they met you not with (solar) bread and with (lunar) water in the way, when ye came forth out of Egypt; and because they hired against thee (Perseus) Balaam the son of Beor of Pethor of Mesopotamia, to curse thee.

5 Nevertheless the (Shekinah) Lord thy God would not hearken unto Balaam; but the (Shekinah) Lord thy God turned the curse into a blessing unto thee, because the (Shekinah) Lord thy God loved thee.

6 Thou shalt not seek their peace nor their prosperity all thy days for ever.

7 Thou shalt not abhor an Edomite; for he is thy brother: thou shalt not abhor an Egyptian; because thou wast a stranger in his land.

8 The (Gemini) children that are begotten of them shall enter into the congregation of the (Shekinah) Lord in their third generation.

9 When the host goeth forth against thine enemies, then keep thee from every wicked thing.

10 If there be among you any (Perseus) man, that is not clean by reason of (lunar) uncleanness that chanceth him by night, then shall he go abroad out of the camp, he shall not come within the camp:

11 But it shall be, when (sun on red radius horizon) evening cometh on, he shall (Eridanus) wash himself with water: and when the sun is down, he shall come into the camp again.

12 Thou shalt have a place also without the camp, whither thou shalt go forth abroad:

13 And thou shalt have a (lunar) paddle upon thy weapon; and it shall be, when thou wilt ease thyself abroad, thou shalt dig therewith, and shalt turn back and cover that which cometh from thee:

14 For the Lord thy God (Ophiuchus) walketh in the midst of thy camp, to deliver thee, and to give up thine enemies before thee; therefore shall thy camp be holy: that he (lunar eyeballs) see no unclean thing (solar manure) in thee, and turn away from thee.

15 Thou shalt not deliver unto his master the servant which is (Ophiuchus) escaped from his master unto thee:

16 He shall dwell with thee, even among you, in that place which he shall choose in one of thy (solar or lunar) gates, where it liketh him best: thou shalt not oppress him.

17 There shall be no (big or little dog) whore of the (Gemini) daughters of Israel, nor a (big or little dog) sodomite of the (Gemini) sons of Israel.

18 Thou shalt not bring the hire of a whore, or the price of a (big or little) dog, into the house of the (Shekinah) Lord thy God for any vow: for even both these are abomination unto the Lord thy God.

19 Thou shalt not lend upon usury to thy brother; usury of money, usury of victuals, usury of any thing that is lent upon usury:

20 Unto a stranger thou mayest lend upon usury; but unto thy brother thou shalt not lend upon usury: that the (Shekinah) Lord thy God may bless thee in all that thou settest thine hand to in the land whither thou goest to possess it.

21 When thou shalt vow a vow unto the Lord thy God, thou shalt not slack to pay it: for the (Shekinah) Lord thy God will surely require it of thee; and it would be sin in thee.

22 But if thou shalt forbear to vow, it shall be no sin in thee.

23 That which is gone out of thy lips thou shalt keep and perform; even a freewill offering, according as thou hast vowed unto the (Shekinah) Lord thy God, which thou hast promised with thy mouth.

24 When thou comest into thy neighbour's vineyard, then thou mayest eat (lunar or solar) grapes thy fill at thine own pleasure; but thou shalt not put any in thy (lunar or solar) vessel.

25 When thou comest into the standing (lunar or solar) corn of thy neighbour, then thou mayest pluck the ears with thine hand; but thou shalt not move a (lunar) sickle unto thy neighbour's standing (lunar or solar) corn.

The Reality of RACE

Blacks in America have been proven redundantly by every conceived standard of measure to possess an average IQ of 85. That’s 20 points, or two standard deviations, lower than the Euro-American average of 105. When I say “every conceived standard,” I mean just that: liberals constantly tweak the tests to favor Black culture, providing extra programs, tutors, and cash prizes to inspire better performance in Blacks. In some cases, they even mandate the addition of extra points based upon race – the beneficiaries of which are always Blacks and Mestizos. But even when the tests are rigged to favor Black and/or Mestizo cultures, to liberals’ great chagrin, the gap still remains.

Now, while 85 is admittedly a better average than the 70-point average found among Blacks in Africa, it still leaves a broad breadth of Black men unaccountable for their actions by way of the fact that the Western world regards an IQ of 70 to be, technically speaking, the line of demarcation for mental retardation. In keeping with that resolve, the American justice system officially regards anyone demonstrating a 70-point or lower IQ to be incapable of distinguishing right from wrong or comprehending the ramifications of their actions; this means that the courts will not sentence Blacks in a manner befitting their crimes. This results in an absurd under-representation of Blacks on death row and a continual recirculation of the most vicious monsters back into society.

Think on these realities for 2013:

Blacks were six times likelier to commit murder than non-Blacks
Blacks were twelve times likelier to murder a non-Black than to be murdered by one
Blacks were responsible for 85% of Black-White interracial violence, hence twenty-seven times likelier to assault Whites than the reverse
To understand the enormity of this discrepancy, one need only translate it into a percentage: Blacks are 2,700% more violent than their White counterparts. If a neighborhood is only 8% Black, the average White victim of violent crime in that area will still almost certainly identify his or her assailant as Black – and for that matter, so will the Black, Brown, and Yellow victims. While Blacks make up less than 13% of the American populace, half are women, and another margin is made up of the very old and the very young, so the egregiously offending demographic (Black males, age 13-35) make up about 3% of the U.S. population. Incredibly, that 3% of the population is responsible for more violence than all other people in the country combined.

To the endless chagrin of liberals, these figures aren’t compiled by any dismissible right-wing source, as so many might wish. They are compiled by the federal government, various universities, and the seemingly endless armadas of liberal “think tanks” and ‘”action committees” living off of government endowments. The ideological partisanship is real enough, but it all runs rigidly against the grudgingly inescapable findings. The evidence is just too monumental to be effectively suppressed or explained away. And though the economic materialist construes this disparity as the result of poverty in the Black communities, this Marxist perspective is entirely undone by the reality that America’s rural areas, despite being quite poor by national standards, do not exhibit any sort of parity of criminal behavior with Black communities. The distinguishing factor, of course, is their White population. No matter where they are – be it America, Australia, New Zealand, Iceland, or any of the countries of Europe – and no matter how poor they happen to be, the worst White community is a more moral and safer place than the best Black community. What’s more, this maxim crosses over boundaries of faith by virtue of the fact that the least Christian White neighborhood is still a many times more moral place than the most Christian Black neighborhood. One may object to these realities, but they remain realities nonetheless. The fact that this sociological law remains to date unnamed is unacceptable. Let the Christian-Newsom Constant be added to the American lexicon.

But propositionalists and egalitarians within the Church will undoubtedly quip: “… but that’s only because the European has been steeped in the Gospel so much longer than the African!” But this too is wholly untrue. St. Philip’s ministry to the Ethiopian eunuch (Acts 8:27-39) marked the first-century inauguration of the Abyssinian church and the institution of the Ethiopic See. African Christianity began contemporaneously with European Christianity, but even where the African’s perspectival expressions of the faith have most approached something which we might regard as orthodox, their spirituality has remained in numerous ways so distinct from our own that we have historically had great difficulty even identifying their expressions of the faith as Christian in the most basic sense. For instance, we find that the African conception of the Christian family has typically been a matriarch, overseen by her mother (a grand-matriarch, if you will), and a male blood relative (usually the lesser matriarch’s brother), together rearing the offspring of several different men. Generally, the children are considered the property not of one family alone, but of the village communally. Hillary Clinton notoriously tried to sell this African model to Americans with the phrase, “It takes a village.” This phrase quickly became a byword with which to mock liberals, but Blacks took immediate offense at this because they understood American Whites to actually be mocking African-“Christian” values. The predilection for this type of familial organization has proven so strong in the African that every colonial society of Blacks in the world has quite unconsciously returned to this model as soon as the grip of European paternalism is loosened. There are admittedly exceptions to this pattern. The Maasai tribe is one: the men take multiple wives, and in order to support their tenuous patriarchy, they perform “circumcision” on all their women to better ensure the fidelity of their wives. Meanwhile, the men still remain gratuitous philanderers. But the exceptions actually prove the rule as well, do they not?

No matter how long Whites have spent trying to imbue them with the idea of the Christian family, Christianized Black societies shed the institution as soon as Whites yield control back to Blacks. Hence, Blacks in America, despite claiming Christianity at a higher ratio than Whites, popularly conclude that “marriage is for White people.” because this denial of race, and of the racial distinction between Blacks and Whites in particular, has, is, and will yet still lead to catastrophic violence on our own children if not otherwise addressed. Truth be told, the levels of rape, murder, and mayhem suffered by Whites in close proximity to the Black race are otherwise found nowhere but in theaters of actual war. Plainly put, the cost of denying the reality of race is carnage and death.

It is on this basis that St. Paul could say, “‘Cretans are always liars, evil beasts, lazy gluttons.’ This testimony is true” (Tit. 1:12-13). No matter how one slices it, the apostle and the prophet (with God back of them) do distinguish between peoples as peoples. God even addresses particulars of ethnic taxonomy such as skin color when He asks rhetorically by the pen of Jeremiah, “Can the Ethiopian change his skin or the leopard his spots?” (Jer. 13:23) So, too, do we find numerous flattering references to Israelites as “white and ruddy” (1 Sam. 16:12; 17:42; Song of Solomon 5:10; Lam.4:7). Scripture speaks ubiquitously in terms of this very same light/good, dark/bad paradigm (Job 24:13,17; Dan. 2:22; John 3:19-21; 12:46; etc.). This metaphysic of light and dark are so delineated in Scripture because “God is light; in him there is no darkness at all” (1 John 1:5). “And God saw that the light was good; and God separated the light from the darkness” (Gen.1:4). Are we saying then that the Hamitic race is not made in the image of God? Certainly not. We are saying, as the Scripture does, that “darkness hides Him” (Ps. 18:11). The usual markers which reveal the image of God in men are distinctly veiled in the African’s constitution, both inwardly and outwardly.

Even twins’ studies have proven redundantly that nature accounts for the majority of our behaviors, tastes, and predilections. The nurture aspect of culture is significant, but not to the extent that it overrides one’s nature. As one would expect if genetics were indeed significant in the constitution of human societies, ethnic similarity in marriage is found to result in greater fertility. Then, there’s the issue of xenotransplantation, i.e. heterogeneous organ, blood, marrow, or tissue transplantation. Even radical leftist Louis Stokes, while decrying what he sees as a thoroughly racist system of selection for organ transplantation, grudgingly admits that “disparity is due to biological matching problems.” What Mr. Stokes objects to, then, is not merely some arbitrary or unjust policy of discrimination, but creation itself. His war is with reality, and the God of reality who is behind these things. Yes, legal minds are in a frenzy to somehow undo these natural distinctions; they war against these undeniable and indelible realities because they run contra their egalitarian dreams:

Disparities in access to transplantable organs can be attributed to the strong preference for antigen matching promulgated by the Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network (OPTN). The more similar the donor and the recipient are genetically, the more likely the chances that the antigens will match. Thus kidneys from white donors will most likely be given to white recipients, even where African-Americans, and other individuals with slightly distinct genetic make-up have waited longer on the same recipient list.

Given the organ transplant issue, the experts can a fortiori say:

Compared to organ transplants, bone marrow donations need to be even more genetically similar to their recipients. Though there are exceptions, the vast majority of successful matches take place between donors and patients of the same ethnic background. Since all the immune system’s cells come from bone marrow, a transplant essentially introduces a new immune system to a person. Without genetic similarity between the donor and the patient, the new white blood cells will attack the host body. In an organ transplant, the body can reject the organ, but with marrow, the new immune system can reject the whole body.

Plainly then, multiracial societies exacerbate transplantation problems in every way, and no amount of politically correct platitudes or liberal indignation can undo what God hath wrought. The anti-racialism with which liberal Whites are so enamored does not come cheap. It costs many, many lives. Every year. Every day. And in many different ways. Even the unfortunate mixed-race offspring resulting from the forced integration imposed upon us by the social engineers demonstrate markedly elevated levels of antisocial behavior by comparison to their mono-racial counterparts, as well as higher rates of violence and substance abuse. That’s really saying something when you consider the crime and pathology statistics generated by Blacks and, to a lesser degree, Hispanics (Latin-American-Indians) as well.

While we’re still on the topic of medicine, it should be mentioned that Blacks are uniquely susceptible to rickets, hypertension, kidney disease, diabetes, heart disease, glaucoma, sickle cell anemia, the contraction of HIV, the progression from HIV to AIDS, sociopathy, schizophrenia, psychopathy, and many other anti-social behaviors besides. Black children are prone to shorter gestation periods (a full week shorter than Caucasians), low birth weight, SIDS (crib death), ADD, ADHD, dyslexia, and congenital retardation. Meanwhile, they are also prone to above-average testosterone, higher ratios of fast-twitch muscle fiber, thicker skulls and tooth enamel, denser bones, longer limbs, high VO2 max, and resistance to UV (sunlight) exposure – all of which is to say that their peculiar handicaps are somewhat offset by their collective gifts, just as is the case with every other race.

In the case of Whites, for example, we are more prone to skin cancer, lupus, osteoarthritis and rheumatoid arthritis, as well as many allergies. (Like Blacks, we Whites too have our own distinguishing gifts, which, for both brevity’s and discretion’s sake, I shall entrust to the reflections of the reader.) Every medical facility and individual health provider is constrained by these facts of biology. As much as they may disdain it, they are forced to gather certain ethnic and racial information in order to provide effective care, because said data bears critically on matters of health. Not all treatments work the same on all races – because race is indeed real.

Moreover, it is the Scripture which gives us one of the most clearly expressed refutations of the a-racial/anti-racial view, in that the text everywhere presupposes the legitimate, lawful, and ontological reality of races and ethnic groups. Specific terms are used redundantly throughout, such as “Gentiles” and “nations” (Heb. goyim/Grk. ethnos), which mean, just as the Greek hints, “ethnicities.” Similarly, the term “peoples” (Grk. genos) is the root of “genes,” “genetics,” “genealogy,” etc., and may be translated by linguists forthrightly as “races.” There are even many words used in Scripture which denote taxonomical, lineal, and legal exclusion from a race: for instance, the term which appears as “other peoples” (Grk. allogenes) is the composite of two Greek words, allos (“other”) and genos (“races”). And the term rendered “illegitimate” or “bastard” (Heb. mamzer/Grk. nothos) in Deuteronomy 23:2 is candidly understood by linguists to mean “mixed-race, mongrel,” as is proven by its translation in Zechariah 9:6, which says “a mongrel race shall dwell in Ashdod.” These are not controversial matters to language experts, only to modern theologians who desperately seek to obfuscate the plain meaning of the text in favor of an egalitarian sociology. Wherever the text speaks in these overtly ethnic categories (which is virtually everywhere), moderns are compelled by the spirit of our liberal age, perhaps unwittingly, to spiritualize all said references. Even the word which is often rendered as “pagan” (Heb. zuwr) in the Old Testament of our English Bibles literally means “alien” or “foreign.” Any religious connotation assumed when one sees the word “pagan” in those texts is but an anachronistic eisegetical (misinterpretive) imposition made by translators. It is patently a racial or tribal term.

The revelation of Jesus Christ through His holy Word, the Bible, and His atoning work for mankind rests upon His irrefutable status as the pure-blood claimant to the throne of Israel – as the “genealogy of Jesus Christ” (Grk. Christogenea) referenced in the Gospels literally means “the racial history of the Christ.” If we deny the meaningfulness of lineal descent and race, Christ could not then be royalty of the race of Shem, Abraham, and David; nor then would He be the holy Seed promised to come through them as Saviour to all the tribes of men. Such a view is the immediate denial of the Gospel itself. A Christian can have none of it. By definition, then, the anti-racialism which has so recently come to ascendance in the churches is plainly self-contradictory and can be squared neither with Scripture nor with reason. Albeit a pretty lie, it is an obvious lie nonetheless.


Next Lesson: Divorce & Remarriage | Back to Home | Email Us