Corsican disturbances

The recent attacks by ”refugees” on firefighters on the island of Corsica led to reprisals by local people. They vandalized a mosque, and the usual denunciations by authorities followed. As everywhere in the West, the authorities side with the invaders and respond to the local citizenry’s concerns by warning them not to carry out any further action against the Moslem ”refugees”.

The French Prime Minister Manuel Valls called the vandalism in the mosque a ”desecration”, a choice of language that betrays bias, because it indicates that Valls considers a mosque ”sacred.” Only something sacred can be “desecrated.” In this country, when churches are vandalized (not an infrequent occurrence) the media always refer to such crimes as just vandalism, not desecration. Why are Mohammedan places and symbols given more respect and reverence than our native Christian places of worship and symbols? Language matters. And in their language, the authorities and their media mouthpieces betray that they don’t regard our religion as sacred or holy, only the Mohammedan cult. Their immediate reaction is to defend and protect the Mohammedans, and to warn the local people. This is the case in our country, as in Europe. Only we are warned not to act out against the Mahometans; they are never warned not to attack us.

The Corsicans, it must be remembered, are not French except in a political sense; their island is under French rule, but they consider themselves a different people, and there has been persistent nationalistic feeling and a Corsican independence movement. Considering their ethnonationalism/ethnopatriotism, it isn’t surprising that they would assert their rights in their own territory. The angry Corsican citizens shouted ”This is our home!”at the refugees they confronted. This may be seen as ”instigating hatred” by the politically correct French authorities but it is nothing more than a healthy response by a people who are asserting their right to exercise control over who lives on their small island. This has normally been assumed to be the right of every sovereign people, especially those whose ancestors have held the same land for thousands of years. It’s only in our insane postmodern world that we are being told that we have no such rights; that every invader or every stray with a hard-luck story and a claim to victimhood has just as much right on our land as we have — in fact, more right. It’s high time that people began to shout out that the politically correct emperor has no clothes. Since when does every human being have a ”right” to live anywhere he pleases, regardless of the wishes of the existing possessors of the land?

You and I have no right to go and live in any country we choose, unless the people of that country grant permission via visas or documentation of some sort. Most of us cannot even go to the lands our ancestors came from because those lands now accept only Third World basket cases. So once dispossessed in the lands in which we were born, we will have no refuge to take us in, as our ancestral countries will have been given away by the traitorous ”leadership” of those countries, and given away to people like these violent and ungrateful ”refugees” in Corsica.

Russia Today, that politically correct leftist media outlet curiously favored by many alt-right types, reports that the French government has banned any further protests by the Corsicans. So far the Corsicans seem ready to ignore this ban. Maybe this kind of thing will strengthen the Corsican independence movement, as they see that the French authorities are determined to ethnically cleanse them and essentially replace them.

Problems with Blogger

Google/Blogger keeps trying to lock me out of my blogger account and saying that there is ”something different about the way” I’m logging in, which there is not.

Tech support/customer service is of no help; there’s no way to find a link to communicate with anyone who can or will fix the problem. They seem determined to discourage me from posting so I may be forced to start blogging elsewhere, on some other blogging platform. Maybe that’s the idea.

So if my posts stop it is probably due to this recurring problem. I will announce if I have decided to move the blog or start another — provided Google allows me to log in to tell you anything.

A few quotes

Along the lines of some encouraging and exhorting quotes from Irish Savant, I offer a few quotes of my own:

“History does not teach fatalism. There are moments when the will of a handful of free men breaks through determinism and opens up new roads.”  – Charles de Gaulle

“When a nation rises up ardent to fight for its freedom and honour, it is always a minority that really fires the multitude.” – Oswald Spengler, The Decline of the West [1918-22]. 

And just to remind us that the hour is late:

“We have our task, and God knows it is a hard one – the salvage of a shipwrecked world.”
   –  Lothrop Stoddard

And I recommend this post by John C. Wright. Christians, if you haven’t seen it, please click on the link and read it.

The leftists condemn themselves by their own words

Recently there was a post on Gallia Watch that quoted a French ”Doctor” as saying that right-wing females should be forcibly impregnated by rape. The original post from which the quote came was apparently taken down, but there is a translation here.

“[…]Since they give us the recipes for crossbreeding their pale race, use it against her side. Let’s sexually overcome these stupid right wing females, for the survival of a smiling humanity. Because they are stupid and easily tricked, like game going to the hunter, things should be easier. Let’s create a curly descent (not German mind you!) let’s curlify this “other-hating”, frightened France.

Refusing the advances of family planning, every pregnancy will result in a little half-breed or a mongrel, an artist that tomorrow she will eventually like.

[…] Hail to a vast altruistic copulation. Provide multicolored descendants to the sinking country of France.
With one goal: kill right-wing poison in the egg.”

I had to refrain from including certain passages which were far too crude and graphic for this blog, but you can read it all at the link, if you don’t have delicate sensibilities. 

The older generations in the South always said this was where it was leading; this was the end-game. And for saying that, they were derided and pilloried as ”bigots” with lurid imaginations and ”hate” in their hearts.
But they are being proven right, and the left has shown itself to be riddled with hate and venom towards Whites, specifically White Christian traditional/conservative people. In France, it’s enough to be White and ”right-wing” to be the recipient of the anti-White left’s dose of hate. And those on the left, ironically, are always braying ”stop the hate!” while they themselves, by their words and actions, betray the fact that their hearts are brimful of hate of the most diabolical kind.

Imagine any White person saying similar things about nonwhite women. First, it wouldn’t happen. There’s nobody suggesting that nonwhite women should be treated as this ”doctor” is inciting his ”brothers” of color to treat White conservative women.

Just what is it with the left and their obsession with women being raped as punishment for being ”right-wing” and White? Does anybody remember that harridan Sandra Bernhard, the alleged comedienne who, in one of her rants against Sarah Palin’s daughter, said she hoped the daughter would be gang-raped:

“A Boston-based charity has dropped comedienne and Kabbalah devotee Sandra Bernhard from a fundraising event due to jokes she made about vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin being gang-raped.
The AP reports that Rosie’s Place publicity director Leemarie Mosca says that Bernhard’s recent wish for Palin to be “gang-raped” by “my big black brothers” doesn’t jive with the women’s shelter’s outlook.”
Bernhard, who says she is “terribly upset” by the shelter’s decision, took to her website to explain her comment. She wrote that it had to do with “women, racism, freedom and the extreme views of Gov. Sarah Palin.”

And the left says that ”conservatives” are misogynists? The left is Hate, with a capital H. It runs on hate. It exudes hate. It lives to hate. It lives for hate.  Leftists and so-called ”progressives” are always people who are losers in life in some way, and who hold a grudge against their betters, meaning anyone they envy and whose traits or possessions they covet. Their whole squalid philosophy is about taking something from others, whether it’s money, possessions, status, power, happiness, or life itself. That is why the left celebrates death, and lionizes death row criminals like Mumia, and idolizes criminal-huggers like Sister Helen Prejean. That is why the left thinks killing unborn babies is a valid ”choice” and why killing ”useless” sick or old people should be legal. That’s why they rally around Planned Parenthood’s ghoulish baby-parts trafficking.

It’s no surprise that the left thinks rape and forcible impregnation of White conservative women a desirable thing, such is their envy of and hatred for White people, especially those who don’t accept their ”doctrines of demons” politics. The left is now out of the proverbial closet on the idea of bringing a new mixed homo sapiens into being, with the gradual (or sudden) removal of Whites as the ultimate goal. And the fact that many White people (perhaps as many as a quarter or a third) don’t find anything wrong with this is very troubling.

Now leaders of Western governments implicitly support and promote the changing of their countries’ DNA by interracial matings. Our media are rife with images of mixed couples (most often White woman, nonwhite man) and obviously interracial children, who are held up as examples of beauty, as opposed to plain old ”white-bread” children, whose images are becoming scarce in advertising and the media generally. And Nicolas Sarkozy of France has actually spoken out, telling the French people several years ago that they must accept and practice ‘metissage’, or mixing, and that if they didn’t, the consequences would be dire. In fact, though, whenever our politicians talk about how immigrants must ”assimilate”, what that boils down to is Sarkozy’s metissage. What they really mean is integration,  ultimately leading to no barriers or lines dividing people; there are still borders of blood or genetics that must now be broken down, or so the obvious implication is.

But these mad-dog leftists, like this putative ”doctor” in France, are actually helping by showing themselves for what they really are: possessed individuals who want to live, ultimately, in a world where there are few to no White people (except for themselves and their ”progressive” kind) or in which Whites are reduced to a subservient status. ”What goes around, comes around”, they like to say, or ”karma is a b___h”. But they themselves are sowing the wind, and reaping a whirlwind, eventually, though they are too blinded to see it.

Deserting a ‘sinking’ ship

I am still shaking my head over the growing numbers of Russophiles on the ”right”, especially amongst those who more or less call themselves ethnopatriots or ethnonationalists. I mean, being somewhat favorable towards Russia and its government is different from talking about emigrating to Russia.

Much of this infatuation with Russia seems to be based on a couple of things, mainly, an admiration for Vladimir Putin. But just ask some of the ethnonationalists in or from Russia what they think of Putin. The other factor seems to be the presence of RT, ”Russia Today”” I believe it’s called, the propaganda outlet that is directed mainly at us here in America and in Britain. Haven’t watchers noticed how most of the newsreaders or ”pundits” on RT are raving lefties, often urban types, people who expatriated themselves because they dislike their own country and people? I viewed RT when it was a new channel on Roku and I quickly had their number. If RT does report things that are too politically incorrect for our controlled media, it seems to be intended mainly to give this country a black eye, and to foment anti-American feeling.

Before anybody calls me a ‘patriotard’, I just remind them that there is a difference between the old-fashioned blind kind of patriotism, ”my country, right or wrong” and a love for one’s folk, one’s heritage, way of life, history. I like being amongst my own, amongst people with whom I share an implicit understanding based on a shared ancestry, history, heritage, preferences, habits, culture, attitude, style of expression, food. Even little things like body language, nuance, all those things that make communication flow better. This is all missing when you are with people of a very different culture and different habits of living, ways of thinking, different emotional style, different rules of etiquette and interaction. If you haven’t ever lived outside your country, and I am not talking about just a vacation here and there, but living elsewhere among foreign people, you really don’t know how alienating it can be. And this is true even when you are in a country with a similar culture and people, such as Ireland. Despite the ubiquitous popular ‘culture’ and mass media, and a shared language, Ireland is quite different, and the people are not ”just like us”. No other people are ”just like us”, no matter that they may dress in American styles, eat American fast food, listen to American music. People are just not interchangeable. This is an idea I’ve stressed on this blog. Yet so many, especially the younger Americans, think all ”White” people are pretty much the same in all the ways that matter, so we can just pick up and run to Europe or to Russia and fit right in there.

And besides Russian women are ”hot”, so American men are wont to say. They all look like willowy supermodels, as the trustworthy media show us.

Then there’s this factor: maybe the Russians (or whichever nationality you prefer) don’t want us moving en masse — or even in smaller numbers — to their already multiculturalized country. Maybe they prefer Russia for the Russians — though it has not been so for a long, long time. Some younger Americans with immigrant parents or grandparents blithely say they are dual citizens and are all set to pack up for the Old Country when things get unbearable here. But in many of those ‘old countries’ that your parents and grandparents came from, they will consider you ”just an American”, not as one of them, despite your ancestry. That was what I heard when I was in Ireland: the Irish viewed Irish-Americans as Americans, first and foremost, and were somewhat bemused at the Irish-Americans considering that they were Irish foremost. ‘Yanks’ is how the Irish-Irish viewed their American cousins. And many Irish have a distinctly anti-American feeling these days. Even if you agree with their anti-Americanism (which many on the ”right” do these days) you are still a Yank from a country that is resented and disliked by many, not just in Ireland but elsewhere in Europe.

Personally I wouldn’t be happy living in a country where my native country and heritage were resented and despised by many. I can’t be that self-hating, and above all I know that my people are not deserving of the bad feeling that so much of the world has for us. Much of their antipathy is based on the same old envy of the successful and the strong (which we once were) that ‘conservatives’ used to instinctively reject. It’s a loser mentality to resent the strong and successful, and to make virtue of victimhood.

Many would-be expatriates are, I think, wanting to run away from their Americanness because they are too quick to succumb to the leftist anti-American/anti-White propaganda. They have internalized it. Why is it that so many ‘ethnopatriots’ or WNs repeat the same slurs against America as the lefties and nonwhites do? Terms like ‘Amurka’ or other such putdowns toward ‘flyover country’ heartland America. Rural heartland Americans, according to this line of thought,  are all dumb hicks, ‘trailer trash’ or they are flag-waving dupes  with low IQs, and all the rest of the bad stereotypes. On this, much of the ‘right’ of today agrees with the likes of Michael Moore.

We need not be flag-waving blind jingoists (as the left has always called Americans who are loyal to their folk or country) but why run to the opposite extreme of knee-jerk reacting, and becoming an America-hating American, or trying to run away from being what we are?

My patriotism and loyalty is primarily to the South, though the South is under an occupation government since 1865. But despite the fact that we are a folk without a state to represent us, or to protect our interests and our existence, that is not a reason to run away to some alien land where you will never be ‘one of the people’, where you may never master the language and culture, and where you may be hated for your nationality.

I don’t expect to dissuade any of the Russophiles or Americaphobes or whatever, but I do want to point out that if we are truly ethnopatriots or ethnoloyalists we should want to stick it out in the land of our fathers, and to act in solidarity with our own folk who cannot or would not leave this country. If the young and able leave this country to find an easier time (so they think) in other peoples’ countries, a lot of decent people of our own flesh and blood will be left to their fate as increasingly isolated and surrounded by minorities in their land. Are we really that atomized and so ”ruggedly individualistic’ in the Randian sense that we will abandon our own, especially our elders, to their fate while we slink off? What about all our dear departed, whose graves we leave behind?

Where does loyalty and group solidarity come in? Are we really believers in the ”proposition nation” idea after all, if we think that because we agree with or admire Vladimir Putin that we ”belong” to Russia more than to the land where our fathers died? Is it all about politics and ideology after all, or is there no such thing as blood ties, love for land and soil, loyalty to those who are bone of our bone and flesh of our flesh?

I suppose the most dedicated Russophiles are determined to jump ship, and if so, I say godspeed, good luck. We are probably better off if those without loyalty to their own leave us. But common sense should dictate that they at least get to know a number of Russian people here first, and try to learn the (very difficult) language, and perhaps ask the many Russians living here why they are not back in their native land, being as it’s such a Christian and free country now. At least visit the Al Fin Next Level blog now and then for his very informed take on the real situation in the Russian promised land, not the ”RT” propaganda.

Christmas in the Old South

The following, or excerpts therefrom, was posted on the old blog in years past at Christmastime. I hope that if any of you have previously read this, you won’t mind seeing it again. I like to evoke the past and our traditions and heritage in these troubled days, and Christmas is a time to recall memories from our past, both our individual memories and our collective memories. It’s not only good, but vital, to try to remember and preserve — or revive, where possible — what is good and true and pleasant from our heritage.

The piece below is credited to Col. J.O. Bledsoe of Mableton, Georgia.

Christmas in the Early South

“Many in the tidewater region of the Southern colonies enjoyed enough wealth and leisure to celebrate the ancient holiday of Christmas in grandest fashion. Largely English, French, and German, often aristocratic, and usually unencumbered by the stern moral earnestness that afflicted their Puritan cousins in the North, these first Southerners thoroughly enjoyed Christmas when they could.

For centuries their European ancestors had observed the 14-day-long season of Christmas-tide, which began on Christmas eve and continued through January 6th, the “Twelfth Day” after Christmas called Epiphany. The Christmas spirit sailed across the Atlantic with them and even during the harsh early years, they often managed to celebrate the Yuletide in the New World with traditional English merrymaking: visiting, music, fireworks, cannon shooting, bonfires, feasting, parties, hunts, games, dances and weddings all before an enormous glowing and blazing Yule log. It had been carefully selected and lighting it on Christmas eve signaled the beginning of holiday merriment. “Carefully selected” in this case meant that servants found the largest, most water-soaked log available since tradition held that the merry season of leisure would last as long as the Yule log burned.

Another tradition was to save a small portion to kindle next year’s Christmas log.

In New England, the Puritan fathers looked with grim disdain on Christmas. To them, this holiday was a notorious occasion for celebrations in Catholic Europe, and they thus strictly forbade its observance. Work continued on this day unless it fell on Sunday. “Anybody,” so ran the enactment by the General Court of Massachusetts, “who is found observing by abstinence from labor, feasting, or any other way, any such day as Christmas day, shall pay for every such offence five shillings.” Elders also found it necessary to “Forbid all traffic in plum puddings and the like.” For some reason the plum pudding was viewed as a symbol of the whole evil affair. The settlers of the middle colonies held somewhat less dreary views and were not so much bothered by feelings of religious guilt. Many of them enjoyed Christmas with the merriment of their “old country” traditions.

The wealth of our Christmas customs, however, came from the Southern colonies. As the years went by and colonists there increased in wealth, so did their celebrations increase in elaborateness. By the last half of the 18th century Christmas time had become the social as well as religious season for Southerners. Many Southern settlers during early colonial days considered Christmas primarily a religious festival; and although the religious meaning of the season was never neglected the observances leading up to “Twelfth Night” or Epiphany, which commemorates the visit of the Three Wise Men to the Christ Child, were often the most popular and written-about times of the season, even outshining Christmas Day toward the end of that period all the traditional English merrymaking customs and revelry were widely and heartily observed.

The Christmas tree was soon borrowed from German Moravian and Lutheran colonists; but from the beginning Southerners gathered evergreens such as holly, smilax, pine, cedar, laurels, magnolia, and mistletoe to “deck the halls.” Wreaths were woven and mantelpieces and pictures festooned. Tidewater Christmases were rarely white, but always green. Juniper or incense might have been burned to protect the household from harm. Another aroma of the season came from the kitchen where Christmas cakes and cookies were baked from long-standing “recipes” passed down from mother to daughter. Gifts were exchanged and carols sung; and specially made huge “Christmas candles” illuminated the whole house.

At the center of all the celebrating was “Father Christmas,” from earliest times called “The Lord of Christmas.” In tidewater Carolina, his flowing hair and beard were made of Spanish moss. In one hand he carried mistletoe, in the other a black wand or staff with a silver crook at its top, and with which he delivered his gifts to all. Southerners did not take readily to what they called “the dapper little Manhattan goblin called Santa Claus.” Father Christmas was large and regal, with features bold and expressive, yet gentle. He was, all in all, the emblematic representative of the classic Jupiter, rather than the quick, merry, and elfish figure Santa Claus has come to be.

Christmas tippling was widespread. Servants’ employment contracts stipulated a bonus for Christmas drinking. Slaves had leisure time for dancing and singing around holiday-long bonfires. Usually, new clothes and extra food were furnished them during this season. “Christmas gift” was a cry heard on every plantation as servants claimed their yearly tip. The old English “Boxing Day” custom of bringing “Christmas boxes” to the master to collect gifts had been transplanted to the South and it thrived even though gifts here were less often money than was usual in England.

The main event on Christmas day, of course, was Christmas dinner. It was a board as festive as could be managed, set before a roaring fire. On this much-anticipated, once-a-year occasion, Southern cooking reached the heights of early American quality and quantity.

Traditions in Christmas fare varied from house to house, but a large colonial plantation Christmas feast that required days or weeks to assemble and prepare might include: eggnog, oysters on the half shell, scalloped oysters, clear soup, roast stuffed goose with sauce, baked country ham with mustard sauce, lamb, roast wild turkey with cornbread stuffing, venison, and several other wild game dishes, including, perhaps a grand “Christmas pie.” The recipe for this special treat called for a turkey stuffed with goose and chicken and pigeon and seasonings, with rabbit and quail set around, all inside a heavy crust. There were brown and white breads, Brussels sprouts with chestnuts, turnips and greens, baked sweet potatoes and apples, beans and peas, Mary Randolph’s salad, fig and plum puddings, orange tarts, bourbon pecan cake, fresh fruit, walnuts and pecans, cider, Port wine, and syllabub.

Christmas was also celebrated with the Wassail bowl, another English tradition familiar to all of us because of the popular verses in the old carol “Here We Come A Wassailing.” Wassail, or wes hael (be whole) in Anglo-Saxon, was a toast or greeting which is associated with celebrations of Christmas and New Years from the earliest days. According to tradition, the head of the household invited his family to gather around the bowl of hot spiced ale with roasted apples floating on it. After drinking to their health and prosperity in the coming year, the bowl was passed around to each member of the family who returned toasts to joy and happiness for all. Gradually, this ale became known as wassail; and the Wassail bowl, usually decorated with garlands of greenery, particularly holly, was a popular custom in America from the beginning. Eggnog was widely substituted for spiced ale in the colonies by the time of the Revolution.

There was much drinking of these and other cheering and warming potions at the homes of friends and neighbors over the holidays.

Our observances of Christmas represent a rich mosaic of customs based on the winter festivals of many ancient cultures merged with Christian tradition. The lion’s share of the credit for preserving and enhancing
this universal holiday in America, like so many of the other good things in our unique cultural inheritance belongs to the traditional Old South.” 

Darwinism, HBD, egalitarianism

Add Christianity to the above list of subjects and you have a recent post at Faith and Heritage. I find these subjects compelling but also very vexing for a Christian and a non-egalitarian. It seems that almost all those who self-identify as Christian also accept Darwinism and the idea of ”evolution”, to some degree or another.
It’s troubling to me that so very, very few Christians are able or even willing to defend the Biblical point of view, or God’s word, instead choosing to meet ”science” (falsely so-called) halfway, and concede some points to the evolution cult members.

For example most Christians say they believe that God created humans but that since Adam and Eve, the various races have ‘developed’ from our original parents; in other words, two people created the same (Eve was created from Adam, remember) somehow produced offspring of multiple races. People seem honestly to accept this implausible idea because ”science proves it.”

I suppose you might say that those who say they are Christians believe that evolution did not produce the original human beings (Adam and Eve) but evolution took over when Adam and Eve had offspring and this resulted in the development of widely differing races.

So they do believe in ”evolution” within the Adamic line, just not in apes evolving into humans spontaneously, or life evolving from nothing randomly.

My background is not in the sciences though I did study a lot of anthropology in college (and argued with my teachers about Darwin’s Conjecture, even though I was not a Christian back then); I just did not see any solid proof of Darwin’s hypothesis or speculation, and nothing has come along since then to alter that.

A Theory is just that; it’s not proof, certainly not incontrovertible proof.

But I can’t argue HBDers who are scholars in this particular field, or even avid lay followers of developments in that field; I am not a specialist, yet most of us aren’t, nor can we be. Only a relative few are educated in that area, but common sense should count for something.

Science, as we all know, is not infallible (just witness the travesty of ‘scientists’ selling out on “Climate change’ or global warming, warble gloaming, whatever it’s called). Science is heavily under the influence of the Marxist egalitarian politically correct worldview, and even if it were not, the fact remains that science is nothing more nor less than just the sum total of human observation and ‘knowledge.’ I put the term ‘knowledge’ in scare quotes for a reason. Science once “knew”, back in the 19th century, that meteorites could not have fallen from the skies because science ”knew” that there were no stones in the skies.  Just as it was once declared impossible for a heavier-than-air craft to fly. Bumblebee flight was declared aerodynamically impossible.

Lots of things that were beyond question, according to science, are now accepted. But science never has the last word, and never will, because it is impossible for us to know all that could be known of the universe. Science is just accumulated human observation and speculation, much of which has been or will be discarded when newer ”knowledge” supplants it.

Science can’t be infallible because it’s a product of flawed and limited humans.

Human reason is imperfect. Human beings are fallen, and pride and self-deception are endemic to human nature. That last sentence, of course, might not be accepted by non-Christians but Christians believe it to be so, and the real world demonstrates evidence of flawed and warped human nature.

But for the Christian who is inclined to accept some facet or form of Darwinism, I put this question out there in hopes of provoking some thought or questioning of the generally accepted quasi-Darwinistic beliefs: were Adam and Eve the progenitors of every being called ‘homo sapiens’ on earth? Why are Adam and Eve created later, chronologically, per the Genesis account?  ‘Man’ is created earlier, before Adam and then Eve. Adam is given a special mission or purpose: to till the ground, and to be a steward of all Creation. Of course that’s just part of it.

And if Adam and Eve were the parents of all mankind, how did their son Cain leave to go live amongst other people, and how would there have been cities ‘out there’ when Cain is sentenced to wander after his crime? Who were the ”other people” he expressed fear of?

I know that mainstream egalitarian Christianity has its facile ”answers” to these questions, which I have not found convicincing.

But if you believe that Adam and Eve were the parents of all humans, then you end up believing that ”there is only one race: the human race” and ”we are all brothers under the skin” etc., though Christians did not always believe this stuff. We are not automatically ‘God’s Children’, no matter what Churchians say in this 21st century.

Regardless of how a Christian explains the discrepancies on the above questions, I don’t see how one can be a Christian who believes in the truth of the Bible and be at the same time accepting of Darwinism and its implausibilities. The two worldviews are in conflict. Darwinists ridicule Christians credulity on ‘silly things’ like Creation or the Virgin Birth yet they believe nothingness just decided to become life, and that Adam and Eve gave birth to Diversity.

I keep wishing for some Christian(s) to really champion Biblical faith vs. Darwin, and there’s far too little engaging going on. I am not the one to do that, but I just hope to plant some seeds of questions for Christians to ponder, so that Christians will not just by degrees, fall prey to scientism.