[Building White Churches into
Instruments of White (fascist) Power]

PART 2: Facing up to the SAD Reality of
a Coming Race War in America

By: S.R. Shearer
February 14, 2009

[This is a "follow-on" article to our article of January 22, 2009 - an article that aimed at shattering the illusion that things will "re-right" themselves economically for us; they won't. This article aims at shattering the illusion that America has entered an era of racial harmony; it hasn't. As Menachem Begin said to the Jewish people on the eve of their battle to free themselves of British rule in Palestine (1948), "It is necessary to free ourselves of false illusions if we are to confront the reality of our situation."]


"And as he [Christ] sat upon the mount of Olives, the disciples came unto him privately, saying, Tell us, when shall these things be? and what shall be the sign of thy coming, and of the end of the world?

"And Jesus answered and said unto them, Take heed that no man deceive you,

"For many shall come in my name, saying, I am the Christ: and shall deceive many.

"AND YE SHALL HEAR OF WARS AND RUMOURS OF WARS: see that ye be not troubled: for all these things must come to pass, but the end is not yet.

"FOR NATIONS SHALL RISE AGAINST NATION, AND KINGDOM AGAINST KINGDOM: and there shall be famines, and pestilences, and earthquakes, in divers places.


- Matthew 24:3-8

NOTE: The phrase "see that ye be not troubled: for all these things must come to pass, but the end is not yet" means simply that "these things" - among which is the fact that "nations shall rise against nations" - will precede "the end."  It's the "end" that we should really be troubled about because it will affect eternity for us; but that does not in any way mitigate the HORRIBLE impact of "these things," and it indicates clearly that we should soon be experiencing them - and so much the more as "the end" approaches.


The Bible speaks of the time immediately preceding the "End of Days" as one characterized by "nations rising against nations" (Matthew 24:7). In the modern world - and most especially in the United States - when we speak of "nations" we speak of them as being defined by the landmass their borders encompass: Hence, the United States, the Old Soviet Union, the Congo, Nigeria, Malaysia, etc. are considered nations, though each contains many different racial and even "tribal" groups that are at odds with one another. BUT THIS IS NOT THE BIBLICAL UNDERSTANDING OF WHAT A NATION IS. In the Bible, a nation is defined by ethnicity, not geographical boundaries - and that's precisely what "nation" means in the Greek (the original language used in the New Testament): "ethnos."

NOTE: According to Strong's, ethnos means a "tribe" of people, or even a "race" of people. [See Strong's #1484; also 1486.]

Thus, when we speak of "nations" (ethnos) from a biblical standpoint, we might better use the word "tribe" or even "race."


In Daniel Patrick Moynihan's magisterial work on ethnicity, Pandemonium (a treatise dealing with the rise of ethnic warfare over the last twenty years), Moynihan elaborates on the definition of "nation" as -

"... the 'highest' form of the ETHNIC group, denoting a subjective state of mind AS REGARDS [RACIAL] ANCESTRY."

NOTE: The late Daniel Patrick Moynihan was for many years the senior Senator from New York. He was a professor of government at Harvard University; he also served as Ambassador to India and the United Nations where he represented the United States as President of the U.N. Security Council.  Pandemonium is based on a series of lectures that Moynihan gave at Oxford University as part of the Cyril Foster Lecture Series.

Hence, in Moynihan's view, the proper (and more accurate) definition of "nation" is the biblical definition: "tribe" or "race."


The definition of "nation" in common use today, however, is not Moynihan's or the Bible's definition; it is the American understanding of that word: A particular landmass encompassed by legally recognized boundaries - boundaries that may have little if any connection to the varying "tribes" or "races" enclosed within those boundaries. This is the definition used by the United Nations and the U.S. State Department.

Moynihan says that this common (or American) definition of "nation" has little association or correlation to the incessant warfare that has come to characterize what's going on in the world today. Indeed, he makes the rather remarkable statement that these kinds of nations (i.e., the kind defined by geography and legally recognized boundaries) are -

"... no longer much inclined to go to war with one another."

It's the other kind of "nation" - the kind that we described above as a "tribe" or a "race" (which is, again, the biblical definition of "nation") - that is responsible for most of the fighting that is extant in the world today. Moynihan says that these kinds of nations (in other words, tribal or racial groups)  -


And they are tearing the world apart as a result.


Needless to say, this doesn't augur well for the United States [which encompasses within its boundaries many different "nations" in the biblical sense of that word (blacks, Hispanics, "native Americans," whites - different ethnic groups, each with its own particular and distinctive worldview)], and it doesn't say much for the chance that an Obama presidency will bring racial harmony to America; indeed, it portends just the opposite - unless one is inclined to dismiss altogether the clear meaning of Matthew 24:7: "FOR NATIONS SHALL RISE AGAINST NATION" - i.e., that ethnic group (race) shall RAGE against ethnic group (race).

It's in connection with this understanding of "race" that we take note of the fact that there are those on the Right (a Right dominated, naturally enough, by whites) who would like nothing more than to see the abject failure of the Obama Presidency if only because it would ignite white Americans to action aimed at wresting control of America back from Obama and his black, "left-wing" constituencies which, in their view, have no real claim to being "American" - at least not in the John Wayne, "Leave It To Beaver," "Mayberry" view of America that they hold.

It's in this sense that we should understand Rush Limbaugh when he recently told his vast radio-listening audience:

"I hope he [i.e., Obama] fails!"

Black syndicated columnist Leonard Pitts Jr., reporting on what Limbaugh said, writes that what Limbaugh is essentially saying here is that -

"The country doesn't matter, ideology does."


Pitts ascribes the differences that separate Obama (and the Left) from Limbaugh (and the Right) as merely "ideological" in nature; but he is wrong! The fact is, as we indicated above, these differences go way beyond ideology; THEY ARE PRECISELY THE "TRIBAL" AND "RACIAL" DIFFERENCES ABOUT WHICH MOYNIHAN WAS TALKING (ABOVE), AND ABOUT WHICH THE BIBLE SPEAKS; the kind envisaged by Matthew 24:7: "Nations [ethnos] shall rise against nation [ethnos]."

NOTE: When we use the word "tribe" as in "black tribe" or "white tribe" we do not in any way intend to demean those about whom we are speaking; the only thing we wish to do is to emphasize what the Bible means as it relates to what we are discussing.

And make no mistake about it: The truth is that from this standpoint these differences - i.e., the "tribal" differences that divide Obama (and the Left) from Limbaugh (and the Right) are so fundamental that there can be little doubt that the Right would prefer to see the demise of the United States as a nation if that meant an America controlled by Obama and his "TRIBE" - a "tribe" that the Right sees as black (or brown), non-European, Left-leaning and essentially "godless."

NOTE: The charge by whites that blacks are "godless" is, of course, totally without merit; the black churches are certainly not "godless;" they do, however, embrace a form of Christianity that is "Afro-centric," rather than Euro-centric; but that is, I suppose, reason enough for many white Christians to call them "godless."


The "Obama Tribe" was recently (and somewhat sneeringly, it would seem) described by Ben Wallace-Wells, a contributing editor of The Washington Monthly Magazine, in an article he wrote concerning The Trinity United Church of Christ:

"The Trinity United Church of Christ, the church that Barack Obama attends in Chicago, is at once vast and unprepossessing, a big structure a couple of blocks from the projects, in the long open sore of a ghetto on the city's far South Side. The church is a ... vision from the Sixties of what a black nationalist future might look like. There's the testifying fervor of the black church, the Afrocentric Bible readings, even the odd dashiki. And there is the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, a sprawling, profane bear of a preacher, a kind of black ministerial institution, with his own radio shows and guest preaching gigs across the country.

"Wright takes the pulpit here one Sunday and solemnly, sonorously declares that he will recite ten essential facts about the United States. 'Fact number one: We've got more black men in prison than there are in college', he intones. 'Fact number two: Racism is how this country was founded and how this country is still run'! There is thumping applause; Wright has a cadence and power that make Obama sound like [the milquetoast] John Kerry. Now the reverend begins to preach. 'We are deeply involved in the importing of drugs, the exporting of guns and the training of professional KILLERS ... We believe in white supremacy and black inferiority and believe it more than we believe in God ... We conducted radiation experiments on our own people ... We care nothing about human life if the ends justify the means'! The crowd whoops and amens as Wright builds to his climax: 'And GAWD has GOT to be SICK OF THIS SHIT'!"

NOTE: Of course, Rev. Wright is correct in much of his indictment against White America - but that's something about which White Americans don't want to hear.

Wallace-Wells continues:

"This is as openly radical a background as any significant American political figure has ever emerged from [meaning Obama], as much Malcolm X as Martin Luther King Jr.  Wright is not an incidental figure in Obama's life, or his politics. The senator 'affirmed' his Christian faith in this church; he uses Wright as a 'sounding board' to 'make sure I'm not losing myself in the hype and hoopla'. Both the title of Obama's second book, The Audacity of Hope, and the theme for his keynote address at the Democratic National Convention in 2004 come from Wright's sermons."

Naturally enough, Obama has - for the sake of political expediency - long since distanced himself from Wright. But no less a figure as the Rev. Jim Wallis, a leader of the religious Left and the editor of Sojourners Magazine, says:

"If you want to understand where Barack gets his feeling and rhetoric from, just look at Jeremiah Wright."

If that's the case - and Wallis is certainly right here - look out "Whitey," especially in light of the fact that Wallis is Obama's friend.


And it's true, all of Obama's protestations to the contrary notwithstanding: it's people like Jeremiah Wright who represent the heart and soul of America's "BLACK TRIBE" - A TRIBE THAT IS UNALTERABLY ALIGNED AGAINST AMERICA'S "WHITE TRIBE," and very understandably so given the injustice and oppression that whites have historically visited on the blacks. After all, how is it possible for blacks to reverence as national icons people like George Washington, Thomas Jefferson and James Madison who thought it right to count blacks as only three-fifths of a human being and enshrine that concept in the American Constitution.

There are, of course, many blacks who would protest that Rev. Wright does not represent the way they feel (and who are willing to overlook the prejudices of America's founding fathers) - just as there are many whites who would say the same thing about Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity and countless other denizens of the Right (and who are willing to overlook the heated, anti-white rhetoric of a Stockley Carmichael or a Malcolm X). BUT THESE ARE PEOPLE WHO DO NOT CONTROL THE INSTITUTIONS OF BLACK POWER. It's the radicals who do. [Please see the following video on Rev. Jeremiah Wright: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vdJB-qkfUHc ; please also see http://gatewaypundit.blogspot.com/2008/03/more-hate-speech-new-video-of-obamas.html. Of course, as we indicated above, if one were honest, one would have to admit that much of what Wright has to say is correct - please see "More Attacks on Rev. Jeremiah Wright" and "Truth Speaks to Power: The Jeremiah Wright Story."]


The militancy of today's black institutions - THE VERY SAME KIND OF MILITANT BLACK POLITICAL AND SOCIAL INSTITUTIONS OUT FROM WHICH BARACK OBAMA EMERGED ON THE SOUTH-SIDE OF CHICAGO (i.e., the kind that would find no fault with Rev. Jeremiah Wright when he said, "... not God bless America; but God damn America!") - can be traced back to the violent racial politics of the 1960s and '70s, and it's to this era that we now turn to discover the roots of this militancy; in doing so, we use the classic study on this subject, Regulating the Poor by Frances Fox Piven and Richard A. Cloward.

NOTE: Francis Fox Piven is a Distinguished Professor of Political Science at the City University of New York (CUNY). Richard A. Cloward is a sociologist on the faculty of Columbia University.

It's important to digress in this fashion because in discerning the militant roots of BLACK INSTITUTIONAL POWER WE CAN BEGIN TO DISCERN THE DIRECTION THAT WHITES WILL TAKE IN THEIR "COUNTER-REVOLUTION," AND THE INSTITUTIONS THEY WILL EMPLOY IN THEIR COMING COUNTER-ATTACK. And it's coming! Believe me, it's coming!


Piven and Cloward note the well-known fact that in the 1960s and early '70s the nation was torn apart by black rioting in the cities - largely as the result of massive black unemployment and poverty. Large chunks of Atlanta, Baltimore, Birmingham, Boston Buffalo, Cincinnati, Chicago, Cleveland, Dayton, Detroit, Jersey City, Los Angeles, Miami, Milwaukee, Newark, New York, Oakland, Philadelphia, Phoenix, Rochester, San Francisco, Tampa and Washington DC were "burned out" in the rioting, and hundreds and hundreds were killed.

NOTE: These cities were cited by the Report of the National Advisory Commission on Civil Disorders as cities that were particularly hard hit by the rioting.

It soon became obvious that police power alone was unequal to the task of stopping the rioting and restoring order; and as the rioting spread and grew in intensity, a great swath of the white corporate world became gravely concerned as to the safety of their vast property holdings in these areas.

As a result, they stepped in under the auspices of such elite institutions as the Ford Foundation, the Carnegie Institute, the Rockefeller Foundation and other similar institutions of elite power to "buy their way out" of the strife and disorder they were facing in the cities and to end the rioting. Not only that, but they provided the elite impetus behind President Lyndon Johnson's "Great Society" program to pour money into the ghettos.

Now it's important to realize that IT WASN'T SO MUCH THAT THE ELITES HAD ANY REAL CONCERN PER SE FOR THE MISERABLE CONDITION OF THE BLACK COMMUNITY AS IT WAS THAT THEY WERE CONCERNED FOR THEIR VAST REAL ESTATE AND OTHER HOLDINGS THAT WERE BEING PUT AT RISK BY THE RIOTING; after all, Ford, Carnegie and Rockefeller had all held blacks in utter contempt - a contempt that was institutionalized in the "foundations" they had erected.

NOTE: It should be recognized, of course, that in the intervening years, these elite institutions and foundations have become "staffed" by "liberals" who seem to mirror the beliefs of those to whom they are channeling money - at least at those levels that come in contact with the black community; but that has in no way altered the basic anti-black mindset of those who really control these foundations and institutions.

In addition, it should also be understood that not all of America's elite institutions joined in this effort. Many refused to have anything to do with it, such as those institutions and foundations controlled by the Mellons, the Scaifs, the Richardsons, General Electric, most of the nation's defense contractors, etc. But these were largely institutions of elite power that were not being put at risk by the urban rioting.


The immediate problem faced by the elite institutions that "sprang to the defense" of the black community was HOW to channel their vast wealth to the black community in order to stem the rioting. This constituted a problem because - at the time - welfare to the poor was channeled through urban institutions (mainly local governmental agencies) controlled by conservative beholden to "working-class whites," such as the "Daley Machine" in Chicago, and similar "machines" in New York, Boston, Baltimore, Atlanta, etc.

When - in the past - relief to poor blacks had been attempted, these institutions of urban white power inevitably diverted these funds to their own purposes, with the result that very little of it ever found its way into the hands of poor blacks - and this was true not only in the South, but in the North as well. How, then, was it possible to get these funds into the hands of poor blacks - unless one was prepared to go down and individually pass out checks on a person to person basis to blacks in the ghettos.

Piven and Cloward explain how this problem was solved:

"From the beginning of the Great Society programs, city government [which was controlled by whites] was defined as a major impediment by many federal officials, an obstacle to be hurdled or circumvented if federal funds were to reach blacks. The problem was solved by diverting a large portion of the new funds to a host of intermediaries other than local government, including private social agencies, universities, and new ghetto agencies created for the purpose."

They continue:

"When the federal government intervened in local relief arrangements in the 1960s, it did so in a novel way - not by directly liberalizing the existing welfare system through legislative amendments to the Social Security Act, but indirectly, through a series of new measures (particularly the antipoverty program) which had the consequence of mobilizing pressure against local relief restrictions. Federal intervention occurred along three main lines:

  • The establishment of new services, both public and private, that offered the poor information about welfare entitlements and the assistance of experts in obtaining benefits.

  • The initiation of litigation to challenge a host of local laws and policies that kept people off the welfare rolls.

  • The support of new organizations of the poor that informed people of their entitlements to public welfare and mounted pressure on officials to approve their applications for assistance.

"Community people, social workers, and lawyers were stationed in ghetto storefronts, from which they badgered housing agencies to inspect slum buildings or pried loose payments from welfare departments. Later, the new agencies began to organize the poor to picket public welfare departments or boycott school systems ... Voter registration drives were launched in the ghettos with Great Society program funds."


As the implications of all this for the black community became clear, countless numbers of blacks militants who heretofore had been engaged in the rioting (really, revolt), moved to seize control of these new institutions, and in doing so, left off rioting and instead began to enter the political process - WHICH IS EXACTLY WHAT THE SO-CALLED "LIBERAL ELITES" WHO WERE BEHIND THE GREAT SOCIETY PROGRAM HAD HOPED FOR.

In order prod this process on, ALL the Great Society programs were required to ensure -

"... the maximum feasible participation of residents of the areas and members of the groups served."

Piven and Cloward go on:

"Over a period of time ... federal intervention had the effect of absorbing and directing many of the AGITATIONAL elements in the black community ... In many cities the Great Society agencies became the base for new black political organizations ... In some areas with large numbers of black voters, the leaders of these new organization began to seek elective municipal office, thus vividly demonstrating how Great Society programs facilitated the channeling of blacks into the electoral system [and away from rioting]."


This process of BLACK EMPOWERMENT has been going on now for more than half a century, and it has had the effect of magnifying black power in the United States far beyond what their actual numbers in the population would otherwise suggest - after all, blacks, though highly concentrated in key urban areas, constitute only 12.4 percent of the overall population, a fact that most people, given the reality of the Obama Presidency, would probably have a very difficult time believing.

Moreover, as black political power has grown, other "left out" segments of the U.S. population - such as radical feminists, liberal Jews, "humanists," Hispanics, gays and lesbians, ad infinitum, i.e., all those whose ethos did not conform to the "Christian," Euro-centered ethos of America's "Great White Tribe" - have joined themselves to the institutions of black power and have magnified that much more the power of America's "left-outs."


Now listen to me very carefully here: The key to the success of black power lies in the fact THAT THEIR POWER HAS BEEN INSTITUTIONALIZED: It's been organized, systematized, structured - so that when it now goes into battle along with its "auxiliaries" (i.e., the gay and lesbian community, "liberal Jews," militant feminists, Hispanics, etc.) it does not go in as a motley crew of separate individuals each fighting his own battle, but as a well-oiled MACHINE much in the same way that the Athenian army went into battle on the plains of Marathon in 490 BC and defeated a Persian army many times larger than itself.

And in all of this, one must remember that the basis upon which the black community has been INSTITUTIONALIZED is the process set in motion by the so-called "liberal elites" more than sixty years ago through the auspices of the Great Society and private foundations and institutions such as the Ford Foundation, the Rockefeller Foundation and the Carnegie Institute - all of which were trying to "buy peace" with the black community.


All this goes a long way in explaining the weakness - despite their vast numbers - of poor and working-class whites in the politics of today. THEY POSSESS NO SUCH INSTITUTIONS AROUND WHICH THEY CAN ORGANIZE THEMSELVES; the fact is, until recently, they have never felt the need to organize themselves in the way the black community has done over the past half century. They have been operating under the assumption - false as it might be - that the actual institutions of government [i.e., the courts (municipal, state and federal), city and county governments, state governments, and the federal government (along with their various administrative agencies)] adequately represented them in the halls of power.

But, again, over the last fifty years these very institutions - institutions that whites had thought of as their own - have been wrested from them; and as these governmental institutions have been wrestled away from them, the culture that they (i.e., whites) had stamped on these institutions has been changed from one that reflected the ETHOS of the "White Tribe" to an ETHOS that reflected the attitudes of the "Black Tribe" and its "auxiliaries."

Thus, the problem that whites confront today is the fact THAT THEY HAVE NO INSTITUTIONS THEY CAN USE TO CHALLENGE THEIR OPPONENTS; they have no independent institutions similar to the ones that the blacks fashioned for themselves as a result of the Great Society, and they no longer have much say in the councils of government (and we speak here of poor and working-class whites). As a result, they are left to fight the so-called "Black Tribe" (and their "hangers-on," i.e., again, the radical feminists, liberal Jews, "humanists," Hispanics, gays and lesbians, ad infinitum") not as a well-oiled machine, but as a nondescript, unorganized, rag-tag army of widely dispersed individuals.


NOTE: And this is no mere academic question; it takes on great significance insofar as the economic crisis that is now enveloping the nation. The very real fact of the matter is, as things now stand, much of the largesse being provided by the federal government as aid to the "poor" is scheduled to be funneled through institutions (both private and public) controlled by blacks. And to say that this won't make a difference insofar as "who gets what" is a big mistake as indicated by a very ill-advised statement made by Robert Reich, a card-carrying member of the liberal elite and one of former President Clinton's key economic advisors: Reich recently said in an interview at the University of California that the "make work" projects being formulated by the Obama Administration should go EXCLUSIVELY to unemployed blacks because they are "hurting" the most. Reich's comment was immediately picked up by conservative talk-radio (particularly by the Savage Nation) where it led to a frenzy among white listeners. Reich later backed off the statement, saying that he had been misquoted; still, poor, working-class whites should be excused if they think that they are going to get the short end of the stick - after all, they possess no means of really making their voices heard.


THE ANSWER FOR WORKING-CLASS WHITES IS THAT THEY INTEND TO INSTITUTIONALIZE THEIR POWER THROUGH THE ONLY MEANS NOW AVAILABLE TO THEM: THEIR CHURCHES - and this is not a matter of simple conjecture on our part; this is exactly the direction that conservative whites took in their battle for Proposition 8 (the ban against homosexual marriage in California).

Believe me when I tell you that the Right's battle for Proposition 8 in California was much more than a battle against homosexual marriage: WHAT THE RIGHT WAS DOING WAS TESTING A NEW STRATEGY AGAINST THE LEFT - A STRATEGY THAT AIMS TO BYPASS THE ELITES (MEANING THE SO-CALLED "LIBERAL" ELITES) THAT ARE WILLING - FOR THE SAKE OF THEIR OWN POCKET BOOKS - TO MAKE PEACE WITH BLACK POWER. [Please see our article, "The Christian Right: Creating a New and Ominous Strategy against the Left."]


Moreover, one must understand something here: this is a strategy that reaches far beyond the strategy that Republicans have used in the past to enlist "Christian" support for Republican causes; IT IS, IN FACT, A STRATEGY THAT AIMS AT REVERSING THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE REPUBLICAN PARTY AND THE WHITE CHRISTIAN COMMUNITY - A STRATEGY THAT AIMS AT MAKING THE SO-CALLED "CHRISTIAN" COMPONENT OF THIS ALLIANCE THE SENIOR PARTNER IN THIS RELATIONSHIP RATHER THAN THE JUNIOR PARTNER.

Now, that's heavy! That's very heavy! - and it mirrors what happened in Germany when in 1932 it became apparent that the business elites were no longer the "bosses" of what was going on in Germany, but it was the Nazis. The position of the two (the business elites and the Nazis) had been reversed; no longer were the business elites the senior member in a conservative alliance aimed against the socialists; the Nazis were. The business elites had been relegated to the status of junior partner.

NOTE: And one should note here that it's not what's happening in the precincts of the Republican Party itself that really counts - whose secular leaders are more than willing to make peace with blacks as evidenced by their choice of Michael Steele as the first black head of the RNC - but what's happening at the "grass roots" of "conservative America" as evidenced by what happened recently with the "Yes" on Proposition 8 Campaign against gay marriage. [Again, please see our article, "The Christian Right: Creating a New and Ominous Strategy against the Left."]


Needless to say, it didn't take long for the Left to make out what was going on: Surina Khan, Vice President of Programs for the Women's Foundation of California, recognized early on what was happening; she wrote:

"Campaign organizers [for the "Yes" on Proposition 8 Campaign] built a well-funded operation that rivaled any major electoral campaign in its scope and complexity. They also built a powerful, religious coalition that centrally involved -

  • "The Roman Catholic Church,

  • "Protestant evangelicals, and

  • "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints."

And this alliance carried the day against the Left in the face of an Obama sweep in the rest of the nation, the overwhelming support of the elite media against Proposition 8, and despite a very late start insofar as their campaign was concerned.


This was a "Religious Right" effort from start to finish; even the money came from Religious Right" sources: Money poured into the "Yes" on Proposition 8 Campaign from the Mormon Church, Catholics (especially the Knights of Columbus), and a wide array of evangelical sources. In addition to all this, individual "Christians" (so-called) poured vast amounts of money into the campaign. For example, one of the main benefactors of the "Yes" on Proposition 8 Campaign was Howard F. Ahmanson Jr., the reclusive heir to the Home Savings of America banking fortune and a trustee of the Ahmanson Foundation. Ahmanson donated $900,000 to the passage of Proposition 8.

Ahmanson's "worldview" (Weltanschauung) gives some insight into the thinking that animated many of those who supported the "Yes" on Proposition 8 Campaign, and his views shed a good deal of light on the RADICAL nature of their ideas - ideas that are every bit as RADICAL as those held by the adherents of BLACK POWER; they are in fact REVERSE IMAGES of each other. Take, for example, what Ahmanson once told a reporter with the Orange County Register:

"My goal is the total integration of biblical law into our lives."


My heavens! That's as heavy a statement for WHITE POWER as any statement made by the Rev. Jeremiah Wright on behalf of BLACK POWER, especially in view of the anti-black sentiments that are hiding themselves in the shadows cast by those who hold such views. Take, for example, what the late R.J. Rushdoony, Ahmanson's mentor, had to say about blacks:

"They [i.e., blacks] are an example ... of 'inferior (genetic) stock'."

And again,

"The white man has behind him centuries of Christian culture and the discipline and the selective breeding this faith requires ... The Negro is a product of a radically different past, and his (racial or genetic) heredity has been governed by radically different considerations."

And still again:

"The background of Negro culture is African and magic, and the purposes of the magic are control and power over God, man, nature, and society. Voodoo, or magic, was the religion and life of American Negroes. Voodoo songs underlie jazz, and old voodoo, with its power goal, has been merely replaced with revolutionary voodoo, a modernized power drive."

Eee gads - that makes anything that Wright had to say about whites pale in comparison!


Ahmanson has served as a board member of Rushdoony's Chalcedon Foundation for over ten years. The Chalcedon Foundation embraces a theology known as "Reconstructionism" - a theology that advocates laws mandating the death penalty for homosexuals, drunkards, blasphemers, heretics, females guilty of "unchastity before marriage," adulterers, and (probably) telephone psychics.

And it's not just adults who, according to "Reconstructionists," should be penalized with death if they transgress the Law, but children as well. Gary North, one of those supported out of Ahmanson's largesse, writes:

"When children curse their parents, it unquestionably is a capital crime. The integrity of the family must be maintained by the threat of death."


An outgrowth of Calvinism, modern Reconstructionism can be traced to Rushdoony's 1973 magnum opus, INSTITUTES OF BIBLICAL LAW. As a "post-millennialist" school of thought, Reconstructionism holds that believers should work toward achieving God's kingdom on earth in the here and now, rather than wait for the second coming of Christ.  George Grant, an avid "Reconstructionist," says:

"It is dominion we are after. Not just a voice... not just influence ... not just equal time. It is dominion we are after." [Please see our article, "Dominionism: The Theology of Today's Antigovernment Movement."]

The late David Chilton, another well-known "Reconstructionist," has written:

"The Christian goal for the world is the establishment of a worldwide Christian Republic."

And one should understand that Chilton is talking about a so-called "Christian" state that embraces Rushdoony's "Institutes of Biblical Law," and countenances "flogging, stoning and even slavery." [Please see our articles, "The Rutherford Institute and R.J. Rushdoony" and "The Right Wing Panics."]


Many white evangelicals would say that Reconstructionism does not in any way reflect their thinking - which, again, is precisely what many blacks say about Rev. Wright. For example, one very perceptive (and presumably black) reader of our website (someone named "Gwen") wrote us recently protesting the tendency of white Christians to connect blacks to the moral agenda of the militant gay and lesbian community; she wrote:

"The most Conservative moral voting people in America are blacks on moral issues. Thisfact came out in the republican conservativeSC State Newspaper about two years ago (a front page cover story)."

She continues:

"It was the black vote in California that helped sway the gay marriage vote.  [Which is perfectly true; please see our article, "The Christian Right: Creating a New and Ominous Strategy against the Left.] The racist white media portrays blacks the way Jews were portrayed in Nazi Germany. But the most church going religiouspeople in America are African Americans. The population that values family the most (though destroyed and fractured and marred for various reasons) are African Americans. They have more family reunions than any other ethnic group in this country. And many of the polices designed by the white government were designed to destroy the African American family and the males andthe head of homes. [This too is true; please see our article, "The Utility of Police Power in the Elite's War against the Poor."]

"That is who the Egyptians went after in Egypt--the Hebrew male babies. This is what the white power structure has done in America [to blacks] ..."

And she goes on to make a very important point:

"Many blacks are liberal democrats because what so called white conservative Christians tout is disdainful and hypocritical from their perspective. Many blacks see these people as religious hypocrites deceiving themselves. For example when I went to an evangelical seminary I use to get angry and reject any mention of missions to Africans because people would not even invite their African American neighbors to a church service who lived next door to them. They may not even speak or associate with these neighbors and then go around the globe talking about Jesus. That is a bunch of poo-poo! So just because blacks identify with leftwing liberals remember this to them is there only viable political option."

She sums up:

"It is my opinion the so called religious right and conservatives are hiding behind a cloak of racism and imperialism, and privilegeand white status.Their ideology haslittle to do with the issues that they tout, but all about truly maintaining their status quo power and control."


The salient point with regard to what we've been talking about is her statement, "BLACKS IDENTIFY WITH LEFTWING LIBERALS BECAUSE IT IS THEIR ONLY POLITICAL OPTION."

That's true - but this is EXACTLY what is becoming the case with the white community: Whites are increasingly joining themselves to radical elements in their own community because they fear the implications to themselves of BLACK POWER - and it is precisely this reason that whites, especially working-class whites who feel that they no longer count for anything in the halls of power, are growing ever more receptive to the idea of taking money from men such as Howard Ahmanson.

NOTE: And, again, there can be no doubt as to the anti-white radicalism of certain elements in the black community (as well as those other "communities" that have attached themselves to the black community - i.e., radical feminists, liberal Jews, "humanists," Hispanics, gays and lesbians, ad infinitum). To say that many of these elements do not hold anti-white, anti-Christian attitudes is to deny the plain facts of the matter.


What is transpiring here between the "white tribe" and the "black tribe" (along with their axillaries) is the creation of what Paul Hockenos calls in his book Free to Hate, an "action-reaction spiral" of one ethnic group "raging" against another; and the fact is, once such downward spiral begins, who knows the depths to which it will descend?

Now it's extremely important to remember that this kind of "ethnic mobilization" is not an elite phenomenon; it is a "populist phenomenon." It is a "grassroots" affair that is driven from the bottom up, not from the top down. In this kind of a situation, elites are powerless to stem the radicalization process because the rage that is driving the process is a "people rage," AND, AGAIN, IT IS PRECISELY FOR THIS REASON THAT THE POSITION OF THE BUSINESS ELITES IN RELATION TO THE RELIGIOUS RIGHT IS BEING REVERSED - WITH THE BUSINESS RIGHT BECOMING THE "JUNIOR PARTNER" IN THEIR ALLIANCE, AND THE RELIGIOUS RIGHT BECOMING THE "SENIOR PARTNER" IN THE ALLIANCE.


Sadly, as racial mobilization progresses, even those who had at first put little value in their ethnic identity are pressed towards ethnic mobilization. The opportunity of choosing between a "moderate" ethnic identity and a radical ethnic identity slowly disappears as the rhetoric between the two camps becomes ever more heated - forcing more and more individuals in each ethnic group to adopt radical ethnic identities.

More importantly, ethnic identity is often imposed on members of the one group by members of the other group. This is what happened in the former Yugoslavia. For example, take what happened to one "moderate" Bosnian Muslim school teacher as the "action-reaction spiral" of ethnic conflict began to take hold there; she laments:

"We never, until war, thought of ourselves as Muslims. We were Yugoslavs. But when we began to be murdered because we are Muslims, things changed. The definition of who we are today has been determined by our killers." [Please see our articles, "Civilization Conflict: Wars and Rumors of Wars," "Culture Wars and Civilization Conflict" and "More Lies and Deception Concerning Kosovo."]



This is especially true as this process is ever more directed at those groups which have allied themselves to black power, and I speak here of the gay and lesbian community, the so-called "Hollywood crowd," liberal Jews, radical feminists, humanists of all shapes and sizes, atheists, Muslims, etc.

IT IS GUILT BY ASSOCIATION - something the Right has always been good at.


The current "whipping boy" for those who want to mold white churches into instruments of white power is the gay and lesbian community, and they are beating this community black and blue in order to foment hatred against the "black tribe."  [Again, please see our article, "The Christian Right: Creating a New and Ominous Strategy against the Left;" please also see our article, "The Creation of an Enemy Absolute Beginning First with the Gay and Lesbian Community."]

One reader - a dear sister I've known for a long time, one who should know better - wrote the following email to me with regard to the threat (as she sees it) that homosexuals pose to society. Her email gives some indication as to the seductive power of this issue in drawing Christians into the "Action-Reaction Spiral" described above, and persuading (manipulating) them into insisting that the white "Religious Community" through the agency of their churches involve themselves in the fray - a process that cannot help but radicalize all those who participate in it, whether they "attend church regularly" or not.

She writes:

"Have you ever had to go up against a militant homosexual group? I have, and they scared me! I got threatening mail and phone calls for just saying 'homophobia doesn't kill gay youth, the gay life style does' in response to a news article in the Denver Post! Their leadership is utterly vicious! They are rich and powerful in every area of life and want to cram their perverseness down our throats and indoctrinate our children!"

She goes on to say:

"You are right the whole world lies in the evil one, but we are not to become sin's doormat either. Allowing oneself to be bullied and manipulated by sinners is as bad as siding with them."

NOTE: One wonders if this dear sister (and I mean that, she is a "dear sister") has taken into account Christ's words in Matthew 5:38-47:

"Ye have heard that it was said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth:

"but I say unto you, RESIST NOT HIM THAT IS EVIL: but whosoever smiteth thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.

"And if any man would go to law with thee, and take away thy coat, let him have thy cloak also.

"And whosoever shall compel thee to go one mile, go with him two.

"Give to him that asketh thee, and from him that would borrow of thee turn not thou away.

"Ye have heard that it was said, Thou shalt love thy neighbor, and hate thine enemy:

"but I say unto you, love your enemies, and pray for them that persecute you;

"that ye may be sons of your Father who is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sendeth rain on the just and the unjust.

"For if ye love them that love you, what reward have ye? do not even the publicans the same?

"And if ye salute your brethren only, what do ye more than others? do not even the Gentiles the same?" (Matthew 5:38-47)


She continues:

"Standing up for truth is what I'd call it [i.e., speaking out against homosexuals]. It costs too ... Sinners who repent belong to Christ, ones who won't [repent] belong to the evil one."

Now it's precisely here that what she is saying sends a shiver up my spine; specifically, her statement that "Sinners who repent belong to Christ, ones who won't [repent] belong to the evil one." What's that mean in real life? - not theoretically, but in real life! That we should legislate them out of existence? Ostracize them from society; and when that doesn't work, imprison them; and when that doesn't work, kill them. Naturally, this dear sister would insist that that's not what she means - but is that really the case? She goes on to say -

"One of God's greatest mercies was the flood and I can name many other instances that GOD DESTROYED WHOLE GROUPS OF PEOPLE in his mercy ..."


This is the same path that Hitler's Germany took in trying to legislate against "sin." Homosexuals weren't killed right away. It was a step-by-step process, and it began with DEMONIZING homosexuals as a group; from there to being publicly ostracized; from there to imprisonment; and it eventually leads to the kind of statement that Cubie Ward made in a Paralife Ministry newsletter regarding the killing of communists in Reagan's Contra Wars in the 1980s:

"... We don't massacre people ... We massacre demons, and these people are demon possessed: they're communists ..."


"Killing for the joy of it is wrong, but killing because it is necessary to fight against an anti-Christ system ... is not only right, but the duty of every Christian." [Please see our article, "The Death Squads: Bringing in the Kingdom of God through Terror, Torture and Death."]

And it's not much of a jump to substitute "homosexuals" for "communists" in these statements.


My heavens! - I know this dear sister (above), and without wishing to sound malicious, I must tell you that she is in no position to "cast the first stone" at anyone! (John 8:3-9) Jesus said:

"Why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but perceivest not the beam that is in thine own eye?

"Either how canst thou say to thy brother, Brother, let me pull out the mote that is in thine eye, when thou thyself beholdest not the beam that is in thine own eye? Thou hypocrite, cast out first the beam out of thine own eye, and then shalt thou see clearly to pull out the mote that is in thy brother's eye." (Luke 6:41-42)

[And remember here, the Bible says that it was "WHILE WE WERE YET SINNERS THAT CHRIST DIED FOR US" (Romans 5:8) - so we are not just talking about the "saved," but the "unsaved" as well.]

The Bible says (and I love so much to use that phrase, "the Bible says"):

"For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

"For GOD SENT NOT HIS SON INTO THE WORLD TO CONDEMN THE WORLD; but that the world through him might be saved." (John 3:16-17)


This dear sister is singling out for unusual condemnation "a certain class of sinners" (as she sees it) that she believes deserve special disapproval; but the Bible says:

"Whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet stumble in one point , he is become guilty of all.

"For he that said, Do not commit adultery, said also, Do not kill. Now if thou dost not commit adultery, but killest, thou art become a transgressor of the law.

"So speak ye, and so do, as men that are to be judged by a law of liberty.

"FOR JUDGMENT IS WITHOUT MERCY TO HIM THAT HATH SHOWED NO MERCY: mercy glorieth against judgment. (James 2:10-13)


Now pay close attention to verse 11 here: "... Now if thou dost not commit adultery, but killest, thou art become a transgressor of the law ..." (James 2:11); now substitute the words "homosexuality" for "adultery," and "adultery" for "killest" so that the verse now reads: "... Now if you do not commit the act of homosexuality, but you commit the act of adultery, thou art become a transgressor of the law ..." - and in making this substitution (which is perfectly appropriate here), remember how stringently Christ defined "adultery:"

"Ye have heard that it was said, Thou shalt not commit adultery:

"but I say unto you, that every one that looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart." (Matthew 5:27-28)

And remember also what Christ said about divorce:

"Every one that putteth away his wife, and marrieth another, committeth adultery: and he that marrieth one that is put away from a husband committeth adultery." (Luke 16:18)

Have you put away a wife (or a husband) and married another? If you have, then according to Luke 16:18 you are living in a "continuing state of sin" - THE VERY THING YOU CONDEMN IN THOSE HOMOSEXUALS YOU SO CAVALIERLY DENOUNCE.

The Bible says:

"But if thou bearest the name of a ... [Christian], and ... gloriest in God,

"and knowest his will, and approvest the things that are excellent ...

"and art confident that thou thyself art a guide of the blind, a light of them that are in darkness,

"a corrector of the foolish, a teacher of babes, having in the law the form of knowledge and of the truth;

"thou therefore that teachest another, teachest thou not thyself? thou that preachest a man should not steal, dost thou steal?

"thou that sayest a man should not commit adultery, dost thou commit adultery? thou that abhorrest idols, dost thou rob temples?

"thou who gloriest in the law, through thy transgression of the law dishonorest thou God? (Romans 2:17-23)


Better be careful here! Better be careful!  Remember what Jesus said:

"For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again." (Matthew 7:2)

I tell you the truth - I DO NOT BOAST - I say the truth in Christ; I know what the Bible means with regard to these things; but do you? Do you really? Are you willing to gamble with regard to Matthew 7:2 insofar as these judgments are concerned?

Yes, there are instances when judgment should be passed with regard to sin - especially as that sin relates to our connection with the world system of man and to the "... weightier matters of the law: judgment, mercy, and faith ..." (Matthew 23:23); but are you really qualified to do so, and I speak here of what you perceive to be sin in others. [I urge you to read chapters I, II, III, IV and V in the New Antipas Papers,]

Again I say, better be careful! - "With what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again." (Matthew 7:2)


This is extremely dangerous territory! One is treading on very thin ice here! - and in view of this fact, Do you really feel qualified to venture out on this ice? Yet this is PRECISELY the kind of thin ice that Christians are venturing out on if they allow themselves to be drawn into the kind of "Action-Reaction Spiral" that the so-called "Christian Right" is pressing on the church today using the homosexual community as the "whipping boy" in this ruse; this is PRECISELY the kind of thin ice that this dear sister (referenced above) has ventured out on - her protestations to the contrary notwithstanding.

Brothers and sisters, the Bible speaks of the "wiles of the devil" (Ephesians 6:11) - and you are making a big mistake in thinking that you can stand alone against these wiles; but that's what many of you are doing right now! The fact is, in severing your relations to the Apostate Church, many of you have severed yourself entirely from any real connection to a "proper church-life." In doing so, you have cut your nose off to spite your face.

The "church-life" protects us from these wiles; it's for this reason that we have been called in these "last days" to involve ourselves in "community:" Community (1) with each other, and community (2) with God! That means, we have been called to establish what I have referred to as "BASIC CHURCH COMMUNITIES" - communities that involve ourselves in living in close relationship with one another - not only spiritually, but physically as well. It's in this connection that I feel it important to bring to your remembrance what "community" means: As we have indicated in previous articles, the word "community" is taken from the word "commune," which means to "communicate intimately with," or to "be intimate with." The word implies "closeness," "affection," "familiarity," "friendship" - and is the word from which we derive the word "communal," meaning "BELONGING TO."

It's this "BELONGING TO" that will save us from the wiles of the devil - wiles so seductive that evidently it has had the power to lead astray that very dear and wonderful sister in the Lord I referenced above - and so much so that she is in danger of being caught up in the RACE WARS (tribal wars) that the Evil One is even now perpetrating on the world - all in the name of righteousness, all in the name of Christ; the kind of RACE WARS (tribal wars) spoken of Matthew 24:3-8. And do not think, even for a moment, that you can resist the seduction of this "Action-Reaction Spiral" - a spiral that is even now taking hold on the church - by merely withdrawing from the organized church and leaving it at that. YOU MUST SEEK FELLOWSHIP - and not merely the kind you can get on a computer screen, but the kind of fellowship I have described in my latest book, "What to Do as the End Approaches;" the kind of fellowship that I discussed in my previous article, "It's Human to Believe that Everything Will Be Alright, but It's also Dangerous."]

It's in the light of this fact that I urge you -

  1. To involve yourself in either our ALIYA training (for those of you who continue to reside WITHIN the borders of the United States) by -



  2. For those of you who live OUTSIDE the borders of the United States, to involve yourself in raising up a TESTIMONY in the lands you are living. If you want to be a part of this great work, please -


  3. In addition, if you have not as yet ordered your FREE DVD, "Greed Is Good," we encourage you to do so now -


  4. Finally, we continue to need your financial help. We will, of course,  continue on whether we receive help or not, but if you can help and take some of the pressure off of us, please -


    In connection with item #4 above, we pray that you will remember the Word of God:


God bless you all!

S.R. Shearer
Antipas Ministries

P.S. We URGE you to check out our ISRP website.


We need your help to spread the word concerning Antipas Ministries and the eschatological viewpoint it represents; WE NEED YOUR HELP BECAUSE WE DO NOT "LINK" WITH OTHER SO-CALLED "CHRISTIAN" WEBSITES which are, for the most part, "in the tank" insofar as their loyalty to the United States is concerned - a loyalty that has made them partners in the BLOODY trail the American military has left in its TERROR-RIDDEN rampage throughout the world, as well as making them partners in the abject poverty that American corporations have imposed on the peoples and nations the American military machine has ravaged - A BLOODY, TERROR-RIDDEN RAMPAGE THAT HAS TO A LARGE DEGREE BEEN CARRIED OUT IN THE NAME OF THE "PRINCE OF PEACE." [Please see our articles, "The Third World as a Model for the New World Order," Inside the American New World Order System" and "The American Empire: The Corporate / Pentagon / CIA / Missionary Archipelago."]




© Antipas Ministries