David Yeagley is the great-great-grandson of Comanche leader Bad Eagle. 
The Iroquois people are not recognized by England today. The Confederacy of American Indian nations (Seneca, Cayuga, Onondaga, Oneida, and Mohawk) must use American or Canadian passports, or they are not allowed in Great Britain.
The occasion? The world championship, in Manchester, of the game the Iroquois invented–lacrosse.
While waiting for their travel visas, members of the Iroquois Nationals Lacrosse team prepare for a team picture in Times Square, New York, Monday, July12, 2010. The 23 players on the Iroquois Indian lacrosse team cannot fly to England for what’s considered the Olympics of the sport because the US government won’t allow them to re-enter the country on Iroquois nation passports, based on a treaty signed by George Washington. (AP Photo/Bebeto Matthews)
The Iroquois Nationals (an obviously American Indian lacrosse team) has been banned from England because their Haudenosaunee (Iroquois Confederacy) passport is not recognized. The players have to have either American or Candian passports. (England claims the Indian passports represent a security breach in the post 9/11 world–as if England has inadvertant concern about murderous Muslims–who preach hate daily in the Isles like a Londonderry Air.)
Percy Abrams, Iroquois Nationals lacrosse team board of directors executive director, shows his Haudenosaunee, or Iroquois Confederacy, passport duringa news conference in New York, Wednesday, July 14, 2010. The U.S. government on Wednesday agreed to let the Native American lacrosse team travel to England for a tournament under Iroquois Confederacy passports, but their travel plans were still on hold because they lacked visas from Britain and because some players needed clearance from Canada. (AP Photo/Bebeto Matthews)
The Indians refuse to be denigrated in this way. Such a position held by the British government insults the Iroquois identity. The Iroquois take nationhood very seriously, and refuse to be degraded by England. The Indians will not be “used” the second time by the Crown. (The United States Declaration of Independence well notes how King George used the bloody “savages” to stir up trouble against the colonists–fourth paragraph from the end.)
England prefers rather to coddle and foster the murderous Muslims of the world. “Britain” rather advocates the torturous presence of miserable hatists, (and bans anyone for pointing it out–like they banned Michael Savage), than to promote the honor of the honest and forthright.
Yes, England has a serious problem with its national identity. They don’t know what their borders should let in and keep out. Everything’s backwards, or upside down. Truly, Nick Griffin and the British Nationalist Party may be the last hope of the country.
The United States government finally gave the okay (via Hillary Clinton) for the Iroquois team to travel on their Haudenosaunee passports. At the posting of this blog, Britian has not accepted the passports.
Nationhood is a precious sentiment to all American Indian nations. Obviously, real nationhood is not a pragmatic reality for Indians. No group of American Indian people is capable of true sovereignty. This is why the word “sentiment” is important. Sovereignty is a sentiment, an attitude. But Indians cannot sustain themselves economically or militarily. Circumstances do not allow it. Therefore, Indians work toward whatever dimensions of independence are possible within the present framework of social circumstances.
Yes, the governments of Canada and the United States made historical agreements with Indian nations. Treaties define international relationships. America, in fact, was shaped by such treaties. American Indians were the first “foreign” nations America ever had to face. However, in the process of time, America grew into the stronger power, and Indian nations now exist only within the boundaries and confines of the United States. Indian nations are technically, legally, and militarily dependent on the good word of the United States government. We could not feed or protect ourselves otherwise.
But Indian nations must not become havens for anti-American terrorist groups. Indian nations must not foster anti-American movements of any kind. This is the worst thing that can happen, and is in the worst interested of American Indian people.
The Iroquois passport issue has two sides. It seems like the kind of prima facie innocent independence and sovereignty that Indian nations should have. Indians are under no obligation to be American citizens. We were declared such in 1924 by an act of Congress, without our consultation or “vote.” I personally am proud to be an American citizen. Then again, my people, the Comanche, do not have the same history with the U.S. government that the Iroquois people have. I believe in Indian sovereignty, but I realize there are rational limitations. (Our sovereignty, indeed, is like a rationed thing.) I never thought the casino business was a good thing, but most Indians see it as at least a stepping stone to more economic indepenence and soveriegnty. I don’t know that this is demonstrable in statistics, however.
I am concerned that Indians not identify with foreign elements antagonistic toward the United States. I have no respect or confidence in any Third World group that pretends to honor American Indians. This is basically racism again. It is another attempt to use Indians.
If there is concern over the Iroquois passports, that concern is not something for England to act huffy about. It is not as though the United States or Canada (both former British colonies) are trying to use the Indian to slap England. England has slapped itself silly with murderous Muslims, and England has promoted this threat to civilization by its continued “tolerance” of Islam, and by the weak and pathetic surrender of the national soul by Prince Charles.
The British balk at Iroquois passports is a ridiculous gesture on the part of the British government. It shows an absolute disdain for American Indians, putting us lower than the loweset of the low–the murderous Muslims. This is the liberal white government of England. This is probably something even behind that–like the international financiers, who control the nations.
All because some Indians want the honor of using their own passports.
Indians may be nations fundamentally foreign to the United States, but Indians are not enemies of the United States now, and must never be manipulated into such a position. No Third World foreign infiltrators, no economic schemes, and no ideology must be allowed to wield Indian power into some mock gesture of resentment against our grand adopted son, the United States of America. Certainly, he was forced on us, but, I’m proud of that son of the storm. The wind blew him on our shores. Shall we resent the wind?
I say claim him, claim America, and fight against anyone who tries to harm him–like the alien, lying black African Communist traitor in the White House at this present time, and all the white liberals who put him in office.
This isn’t about passports or security. This is about American Indian identity. Indeed, we’re the last of the Mohicans when it comes to ethnic pride–at least in America.
48 responses so far ↓
1 World Wide News Flash // Jul 15, 2010 at 9:26 am
Iroquois Push Nationhood: England prefers Murderous Muslims…
I found your entry interesting do I’ve added a Trackback to it on my weblog
…
2 Pamela K. // Jul 15, 2010 at 9:53 am
“The Indian nations have always been considered as distinct, independent political communities, retaining their original natural rights as the undisputed possessors of the soil, from time immemorial, with the single exception of that imposed by irresistible power, which excluded them from intercourse with any other European potentate than the first discoverer of the coast of the particular region claimed; and this was a restriction which those European potentates imposed on themselves as well as on the Indians. The very term, “nation” so geneally applied to them, means, ” a people distinct from others.” The Constitution, by declaring treaties already made, as well as those to be made, to the supreme law of the land, has adopted and sanctioned the previous treatise with the Indian nations, and consequently admits their rank among those powers who are capable of making treaties. The word, ‘treaty’ and ‘nation’ are words of our own language, selected in our diplomatic and legislative proceedings by ourselves, having each a definite and well understood meaning. We have applied them to Indians as we have applied them to other nations of the earth. They are applied to all in the same sense.”
-The Supreme Court’s opinion in the case of Worcester vs, the State of Georgia, in the sadly famous case of the removal of the Cherokees.
3 David Yeagley // Jul 15, 2010 at 10:34 am
THen the issue became this: Did the new American FEDERAL government have to honor the earlier treaties made with Indians by the colonial “states”?
Some state treaties were honored. Some weren’t. This is the reason there are “pop-up” casino tribes–particularly in the East, They are claiming original colonial treaties as their basis for being federally recognized now, today.
Trouble is, most of these people are not Indian, but Negro. Most are left-over slave breeds (mulattos) who think they can pawn themselves off as Mashantucket-Pequots, or some other long lost “tribe”–which was indead once a tribe, with treaties made. But, some of this was two hundered years before, or more.
4 Pamela K. // Jul 15, 2010 at 12:22 pm
Yes. those original treaties should have been honored by the new colonial states. Furthermore, it is my personal belief, that the Supreme Court rendering that, “The Indian nations have always been considered as distinct, independent political communities” should still be standing today. Historians cannot dispute the fact that the Indians were here first, nor can they deny that before America became a nation, England, France, and Portugal, who all claimed shares of this new world at one time, all recognized the Indians occupancy of the land. The Indians nations should have been recognized and then left alone! . May be then, there would have never been the need to gamble as a means of income. This issue with the blacks and mulattos claiming to be members of Indian tribes is typical of the government’s appeasement of “special interest groups.”
Their thinking is that some Indian tribes, like the Cherokee, owned slaves and therefore (and please do not take offense to this) must have intermarried with their slaves so these black descendants of these slaves have Indian blood in them and therefore are considered Indian. I do not know how this is determined but it does not matter because it’s really all about money. Some blacks will never allow the ’slavery issue’ to rest. They feel that white people and Indian people should compensate them for the past. Whether or not they came from slaves is irrelevant. They are black and they are greedy that’s all that matters!
5 David Yeagley // Jul 15, 2010 at 1:01 pm
The 2,300 Negroes who have lived on the Cherokee lands were never citizens of the Cherokee nation. That’s all there is to it.
Black Barry hired a Pawnee (the tribe that never fought the Gov’t, but instead hired out as gov’t agents, always fighting against all Indians), Mr. Echohawk, and the first they they tried to do was to say that all Indians not living on their ancestral lands would have to demonstrate their Indian blood…
Why, if those Negroes couldn’t get their piece of Indian pie, then no Cherokee could.
Black Barry disdains Indians. Always has. The man meets the true definition of the word “racist.”
6 David Yeagley // Jul 15, 2010 at 1:03 pm
I know I brought it up, indirectly, but, please, no more talk about blacks. (If I bring it up again, rebuke me!)
This is about Iroquois Indians, nationhood, and actually, the issue of England’s “identity” at this point.
7 Thrasymachus // Jul 15, 2010 at 1:47 pm
I don’t want anybody to miss this, so I’m posting this link here also:
The Christian Doctrine of Nations.
This is the most important article I’ve read to date on this subject. Liberalism is leading the churches with a leashed ring in their noses!
8 David Yeagley // Jul 15, 2010 at 2:08 pm
Okay. I’ll have to read it. American Renaissance posted it, and I’ve already been informed. I’ll look at it. (I was waiting for them to post the recent article I wrote for them–about Comanches.)
9 Pamela K. // Jul 15, 2010 at 2:11 pm
What is England’s problem? I do not see what the big deal is here. As always, there has got to be something more than what meets the eye. (or is being reported). Is it really that they have a problem with Iroquois Nationhood, or are they worried about getting their butts kicked in Lacrosse?
Prince Charles should be ashamed of himself. I am sure his royal ancestors are rolling in their graves!
The British Empire was an unshakable bastion of Christianity. However, the Mighty Lion roars no more. The stalwart national character of Britain has been forsaken in the name of “tolerance” and multiculturalism. In fact, I believe Nick Griffin was the man who was facing prison for calling Islam a “wicked religion.”
He is a brave man.
By the way, the excerpt from the Supreme Court ruling in my earlier comment was taken from the book, “A Century Of Dishonor” by Helen Jackson. This book should be required reading for anyone who wants to know the truth about the US Government’s abominable policy towards American Indians. Mrs. Jackson, who was suffering from an advanced case of stomach cancer while she wrote this book, personally mailed a copy to every member of Congress before she died. She wanted to make sure that they realized, in the words of H.B. Whipple, who wrote the preface of her book, “The sad revelation of broken faith, of violated treaties, and inhuman deeds of violence will bring a blush of shame to the cheeks of those who love their country. They will wonder how our rulers have dared to so trifle with justice, and provoke the anger of God.”
10 David Yeagley // Jul 15, 2010 at 2:16 pm
Well, PK, the only way all of this could have been avoided is if the white man never came here. Once here, the rest was inevitable. The numbers, the aggression.
That may be an over-simplification, but, it’s the way it panned out.
Do you believe America is in biblical prophecy?
11 David Yeagley // Jul 15, 2010 at 2:20 pm
Thras, read it. Of course, not a prinicple or text in there that I haven’t referenced many times over the years.
I’m happy to tell you, however, that the one atom bomb text he left out! See? I still have reason to write more on the subject.
It’s a fine piece of work, no question. What made it worth it to me was the references to modern Christian organizations and their politics. Having been to Yale, I considered the modern church extremely liberal, ever after.
Of course, Christian conservatism cropped up in the intervening years.
The Bible is all about sex, race, and religion. I think that’s all there is!
12 Thrasymachus // Jul 15, 2010 at 2:29 pm
The essence of Liberalism is a rejection of ethnic nationhood and ethnic patriotism. The individual is seemingly glorified while, at the same time, declared merely equal to every other individual.
The governments of modern socially engineered multicultural societies deeply resent any people who identify themselves as ethnic nationals. To see yourself as belonging to an ethnic nation is to reject the spirit of cosmopolitanism.
The Muslims in England are only tools used to divide and conquer the British. I hate to say this, but even Hitler, were he to view modern England, would have the last laugh. Hitler’s warmongering was insane and it has put us in this new state of the world in which all ethnic nations are under threat of annihilation.
Liberalism, which falsely and lyingly proclaims the “civil rights” of individuals, negates and dissolves the rights of ethnic nations. This paves the way for a world government in which former nations have only theoretical existence, but no sovereignty.
The fuss and fury over Iroquois passports is probably not directed at the Iroquois themselves, but at the audacity of any people to claim allegiance to something as particular as proven historical ethnic nationhood.
13 Pamela K. // Jul 15, 2010 at 2:53 pm
Unfortunately David, I do believe America is in Biblical prophecy:
“Then I saw another angel descending from heaven, possessing great authority and the earth was illuminated with his radiance and splendor.
And he shouted with a mighty voice, “She is fallen! Mighty Babylon, The Great Whore, is fallen! She has become a resort and dwelling place for demons, a dungeon haunted by every loathsome spirit, an abode for every filthy and detestable bird,
For all nations have drunk the wine of her passionate unchastity, and the rulers and the leaders of the earth have joined her in committing fornication (idolatry) and the businessmen of the earth have become rich with the wealth of her excessive luxury and wantoness.” Revelation 18: 1-3
14 Thrasymachus // Jul 15, 2010 at 3:04 pm
“I’m happy to tell you, however, that the one atom bomb text he left out! See? I still have reason to write more on the subject.”
———————————————–
This is good news. I am always hungry for more in-depth knowledge of sound Biblical teaching on race and nation.
As for me, I started with an intuition. Why would God create different races and nations, if He only wanted human beings to bend over backwards to un-create them? This never did seem logical to me.
As I see it, if Armageddon is to be a literal physical battle on planet Earth, it will involve, I think, forces for and forces against ethnic nationhood.
Israel is an explicitly ethnic nation, and she has laws to keep it that way. Liberalism would destroy Israel along with all other ethnic nations. Thus nationalism seems to be one of the keys to understanding the historical aspect of the Scriptures.
God’s covenant with Abraham (and Sarah) was an ethnic nation covenant. Indeed, Abraham’s descendants were to become many such nations.
The Jewish people today, as Albert Einstein, an unbeliever, illustrates, are a race. As Einstein himself stated, members of a race have a mental affinity for one another. This is only natural.
If God did ordain the nations, then it would seem rather logical, if not obvious, that the Enemy of God would try to abolish them.
But the Bible predicts a “strong delusion” that is to overcome society. I believe that delusion to be Liberalism. “There is a way that seemeth right unto a Man, but the ends thereof are the ways of death.” (Perhaps this could be generalized as well, to mean, a way that seems right to Man?) Liberalism is, in my opinion, that “broad way that leadeth to destruction.”
15 Pamela K. // Jul 15, 2010 at 3:14 pm
As a postscript to Revelation 18:1-3 it breaks my heart to think that the Great Whore of the Revelation is America. Our people have done a lot of good and noble deeds in this world too, like storming the beaches at Normandy to liberate Europe from the Nazis. However, our government is anything but good and has proved this time and again. We are the number on exporters of abortion in the world. Obama just sent his native Kenya millions of dollars to promote his abortion agenda: http://www.christiannewswire.com/news/3677414432.html
16 Thrasymachus // Jul 15, 2010 at 3:17 pm
“The Bible is all about sex, race, and religion. I think that’s all there is!”
——————————————–
These three elements cannot be sifted out of human life. The Bible is about very real people. Every real human being must take a position and develop attitudes towards these three basic elements of Man’s existence. There’s no escaping this responsibility. Even monks have taken their position. Eunuchs are mentioned by Jesus as being included in this “paradigm.” But medical “solutions” are still just another approach to these questions. Every approach has its consequences, good or bad.
When it comes to race, the Liberal is devious and espouses double-standards. Some of these Liberals are guilty of race hatred and they disguise this as “anti-racism”!
17 Pamela K. // Jul 15, 2010 at 3:30 pm
“The Bible is all about sex, race, and religion. I think that’s all there is.”
The three things listed above are the three most contentious subjects in the course of human history.
God did separate the nations. However, He did this primarily to keep the Jewish people from fornicating with pagan cultures. They did it anyway as He knew they would, however, their spiritual adultery against God has never cancelled out His eternal covenant with them concerning the land of Israel.
More human lives have been ruined through indiscrimnate sexual encounters-unwanted pregnancy, veneral disease, broken hearts and spirits, divorce, even death- are all part of the natural human inclination to indulge in physical lust. However, unlike the animals who must conform to the mating habits of their species, God clearly gives human beings a choice in the matter. He also honors marriage as a covenant relationship between one man, one woman, and Himself.
Religion is your way of life. Jesus Himself said that not all religious people are Godly people. The Bible makes it abundantly clear that the only way to salvation is through our faith in Jesus Christ. His Grace alone is the only means to Salvation. You can’t earn it.
18 David Yeagley // Jul 15, 2010 at 3:42 pm
Indeed, for the Christian, anyway, Christ alone is the only hope held before humanity. No nation, no organization (church), no cult, no ethnicity; just the cross.
Regardless of what interpretation given to “Babylon,” the spiritual test remains the same for the individual: loyalty to our Creator, and salvation through His appointed means.
I may sound naive, but, I haven’t heard America being Babylon. I heard Rome (RCC), England, The UN, the New World Order, the CFR, etc. America is a new one on me.
19 Pamela K. // Jul 15, 2010 at 4:10 pm
That’s my own take on the subject. We are not only living in a culture which embraces death, but promoting the culture of death beyond our borders, advocating killing off the poor and the unwanted by promoting abortion in the Third World. One of the first acts Obama rescinded as president was the ban on the funding of abortion overseas.
How long will it be before God finally loses his patience?
20 David Yeagley // Jul 15, 2010 at 4:47 pm
Whatever Babylon is, if we are a nation are like it, if we participate in it, if we do what it does, then we will surely suffere the consequences foretold, indeed.
21 Thrasymachus // Jul 15, 2010 at 5:55 pm
“However, unlike the animals who must conform to the mating habits of their species, God clearly gives human beings a choice in the matter.”
—————————————————-
Human beings are exempt from the law of “kind after kind”?
Kindly supply chapter and verse. Since you say “clearly,” there must be a clear verse in Scripture stating, in no uncertain terms, that miscegenation is to be freely practiced by all human beings.
In my opinion, rampant, socially engineered miscegenation, for explicit purposes of destroying the nations God made and ordained, is Babylon (racial and religious Confusion and the “One People” project) — return to the disobedience of those who gathered to build the Tower of Babel. Rebellion. This will result also in an attempt to eliminate the nation of Israel. Thus it is of devilish design.
22 Thrasymachus // Jul 15, 2010 at 6:28 pm
Although I attended church and Bible classes regularly while growing up, much, if not most, of what I learned — the details, as it were — was from Dr. J. Vernon McGee, a radio Bible-teacher.
Dr. McGee taught that there was no sin in Whites marrying Negroes — but he advised his listeners not to do it, for reasons of social disapproval! (Yes, not all that long ago, most Americans were somewhat shocked at black-white pairings.)
However, even McGee was inconsistent on this point. I heard one of his older live Sunday sermons in which he mentions the degrading effects of the loss of racial quality in the general American population.
My own intuition told me that people (McGee’s listeners) would hardly be even raising this question — i.e., have doubts and reservations about it — if unlimited miscegenation were entirely innocent and totally harmless.
Back when Liberals were pushing for the racial integration of the schools, they would actually say (some of them) that miscegenation was not an issue, as no one was forcing any student to participate in it. But, of course, miscegenation was the REAL goal of at least some of those pushing for integration.
God’s Covenant with Abraham was both religious and racial. A careful reading of the Old Testament will make this clear. Israel was one of the nations God made. What is good for that nation is to serve as an example to other nations. Israel is to be a “light unto the nations.” If miscegenation is to be discouraged in Israel, then discouraging it for other nations certainly would be a good idea.
For, when enough individuals of two races marry, we can then say that the two races have effectively married. They have decided to become a new people — a new nation. The Bible illustrates this very proposal. The early Israelites turned it down. Above all, the Israelites were commanded not to marry Canaanites — and these were Blacks.(The Africans, including the Egyptians and Canaanites were descended from Ham.)
23 Pamela K. // Jul 15, 2010 at 7:33 pm
Old Testament law forbid the Israelites from engaging in interracial marriages, not because of skin color or ethnicity, but because of religious differences. God did not want His chosen people to fornicate with pagan idol worshippers.
Speaking to the Israelites upon entering into the land they would possess, Moses told the people of the seven stronger nations which would live among them, namely, the Hittites, the Girgashites, the Amorites, the Canaanites, the Perizzites, the Hivites, and the Jebusites. God through Moses warned the Israelites, “You shall not make marriage with them; your daughter you shall not give to his son, nor shall you take his daughter for your son.
For they will turn away your sons from following Me, that they may serve other gods; so will the anger of the Lord be kindled against you and He will destroy you quickly.” Deuteronomy 7:3-4.
In the New Testament, Saint Paul issues a similar warning to Christians: “Do not be unequally yoked with unbelievers. For what partnership have right living and right standing with God with iniquity and lawlessness? Or how can light have fellowship with darkness.” II Corinthians 6:14
Again, Paul is speaking about interreligious marriage. The Bible does not say anything about prohibiting marriage on the basis of race or ethnicity.
24 Thrasymachus // Jul 15, 2010 at 7:47 pm
“Speaking to the Israelites upon entering into the land they would possess, Moses told the people of the seven stronger nations which would live among them . . .”
——————————-
Actually, the Bible says that God will drive these nations out.
“When the LORD your God brings you into the land you are entering to possess and drives out before you many nations–the Hittites, Girgashites, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites and Jebusites, seven nations larger and stronger than you– and when the LORD your God has delivered them over to you and you have defeated them, then you must destroy them totally. Make no treaty with them, and show them no mercy.”
— Deuteronomy 7:1-2
God calls for the genocide of these nations you mention. I don’t think that it was merely for “religious reasons” that genocide was prescribed as the remedy.
25 Thrasymachus // Jul 15, 2010 at 7:52 pm
The prohibition against intermarriage comes AFTER the command to ethnically cleanse the area!
“Do not intermarry with them. Do not give your daughters to their sons or take their daughters for your sons”
–Deuteronomy 7:3
The Israelites were not to intermarry, so as to allow the destruction of these foreign nations to take place without hindrance.
Again, if the Covenant is with Abraham and his SEED (descendants), it cannot accomodate unlimited intermarriage. Thus intermarriage is commanded for the preservation of Abraham’s SEED — his biological descendants. The “holy race” mentioned in Ezra. If a race is holy, it must be SEPARATE from other races. Holy implies separation.
26 Thrasymachus // Jul 15, 2010 at 7:58 pm
Judaism is both a religion and a race. Any honest Jew will tell you so. Thus, in modern Israel, we have the same marriage prohibitions — and they are not about religious affiliation.
27 Pamela K. // Jul 15, 2010 at 8:03 pm
There were still remenents of these groups within the land after the Israelites came there. One was the Jebusites, who were still in control of Jerusalem during the time of David.
“And the king and his men went to Jerusalem against the Jebusites, the inhabitants of the land, who said to David: “You shall not enter here, for the blind and the lame will prevent you; they thought.David cannot come here.”
II Samuel 5:6
David did capture Jerusalem however. His son, Solomon, the child he sired with Bathsheba, whose murdered husband was Uriah the Hittite, would later make the remaining Jebusites into slaves.
28 Thrasymachus // Jul 15, 2010 at 8:04 pm
“Thus intermarriage is commanded for the preservation of Abraham’s SEED — his biological descendants.”
————————
Woops! Thus intermarriage is PROHIBITED in order to preserve Abraham’s SEED — his biological descendants. They are preserved in order to be a “special” and “peculiar” people — again, if this were merely on account of religion, the call would be to proselytize the heathen, not wipe them out — yet annihilate them is what was commanded.
29 Thrasymachus // Jul 15, 2010 at 8:06 pm
“There were still remenents of these groups within the land after the Israelites came there.”
—————————————-
The remnants were indeed there, because the Israelites failed to carry out the command given them. God did not intend for there to be a remnant of the heathen!
30 Thrasymachus // Jul 15, 2010 at 8:15 pm
I understand that it’s shocking in the modern era to read what the Bible actually says! It’s so shocking that I’m posting it again, in the NASB translation.
“When the LORD your God brings you into the land where you are entering to possess it, and clears away many nations before you, the Hittites and the Girgashites and the Amorites and the Canaanites and the Perizzites and the Hivites and the Jebusites, seven nations greater and stronger than you, and when the LORD your God delivers them before you and you defeat them, then you shall utterly destroy them. You shall make no covenant with them and show no favor to them. “Furthermore, you shall not intermarry with them; you shall not give your daughters to their sons, nor shall you take their daughters for your sons.” — Deuteronomy 7:1-3
UTTERLY means all of them. Rid the land of all who dare to remain therein. This is what Ancient Israel was commanded to do. No heathen survivors were to be permitted to dwell in that land.
31 Thrasymachus // Jul 15, 2010 at 8:26 pm
God considered these nations to be utterly corrupt and morally dead. Therefore He wanted them removed entirely. Annihilated. I know that this is foreign to modern egalitarian doctrine — so much so that when Christians read their Bibles, they fail to take in the full import of the text in such passages.
“In the fourth generation your descendants will come back here, for the sin of the Amorites has not yet reached its full measure.”
– Genesis 15:16
God was waiting — not to convert these seven nations — but for their moral decay to become complete. God wanted them ripe for destruction. Shocking to modern egalitarian readers, no doubt.
32 Thrasymachus // Jul 15, 2010 at 8:33 pm
Modern egalitarian Christians desperately wish that the Bible did not contain such harsh commands. So they refuse to acknowledge them. Yet God had no further use for these heathen nations. He had clearly decided that their time was up. It was on account of their SIN that this was so. God will never destroy a righteous or innocent nation in this harsh genocidal manner.
33 Thrasymachus // Jul 15, 2010 at 8:34 pm
I happen to believe that these seven heathen nations had known God and had turned their backs on Him. Thus, in God’s sight, they had no excuse. Of course, this is merely my opinion.
34 Pamela K. // Jul 15, 2010 at 8:37 pm
“A very dangerous state of mind: give in as quickly as possible, give up as quickly as possible, peace and quiet at any cost.”- Alexander Solzhenitsyn.
This is the current mindset of the English Government. The progressive mind is hopelessly retarded when it comes to knowing right from wrong. Believing that they are being ‘tolerant and invoking peace’ by allowing English law to be usurped by the vitrolic tenets of Sharia is one example of this prevailing retardism.
Politicians in England are no different from their American cousins across the big pond. Wave enough money under their noses and they’ll follow you anywhere! Even if you are a Muslim who wants to kill them and their people in the name of Allah.
35 Thrasymachus // Jul 15, 2010 at 8:53 pm
Deuteronomy 7:1-3 (King James Version)
Deuteronomy 7
1 When the LORD thy God shall bring thee into the land whither thou goest to possess it, and hath cast out many nations before thee, the Hittites, and the Girgashites, and the Amorites, and the Canaanites, and the Perizzites, and the Hivites, and the Jebusites, seven nations greater and mightier than thou;
2 And when the LORD thy God shall deliver them before thee; thou shalt smite them, and utterly destroy them; thou shalt make no covenant with them, nor shew mercy unto them:
3 Neither shalt thou make marriages with them; thy daughter thou shalt not give unto his son, nor his daughter shalt thou take unto thy son. — Genesis 7:1-3
Yes, in the New Testament, we are taught, “For God so love the world . . .” (John 3:16) This is the Age of Grace. But this was not the prevailing condition in Abraham’s day and age.
In the Old Testament age, a nation could become so dead in trespasses and sin that God could call for its total destruction. Obviously, these commands are not for modern believers. But they were meant for those to whom they were given.
36 Thrasymachus // Jul 15, 2010 at 8:56 pm
So, PK, what is the meaning of Deuteronomy 7:2, please.
37 Thrasymachus // Jul 15, 2010 at 9:01 pm
To Israel God says,
“For thou art an holy people unto the LORD thy God, and the LORD hath chosen thee to be a peculiar people unto himself, above all the nations that are upon the earth.” — Deuteronomy 14:2
How can one say that this statement is merely about religious belief and not race or nation? These are the descendants of Abraham and Sarah, who are being addressed.
38 Thrasymachus // Jul 15, 2010 at 9:36 pm
To sum up, then:
Nowhere in this present Age of Grace is the Christian called upon to commit acts of genocide.
Persons of all nations can be Christians.
But Abraham saw the Covenant between his God and himself as involving his biological descendants — the people who would be born into his family; and he understood that that family would become a nation — not merely of religious followers, but also of a biological character (people of a common birth — NATIO in Latin). Through that nation, the Salvation of all other nations would eventually come.
39 Pamela K. // Jul 15, 2010 at 10:01 pm
The verse Deuteronomy 7:2 speaks for itself. God commanded the Israelites to smite their enemies in the land. This is a common theme in the Old Testament. God did not want the Israelites to be influenced or to fornicate with pagan cultures, but they did it anyhow!
America ought to take her cue from the ancient Israelites. Every time they disobeyed God and followed after other cultures and other gods, the Lord allowed their enemies to come into the land again and attack them. God did not want this to happen. The Israelites chose this to happen by being disobedient. By following after other gods, they forfeited their right to the providence and the protection of Almighty God.
Contrary to liberals in denial, America was founded under the Judeo-Christian principles found in the Holy Bible. When the United States of America was founded, it was unlike anything anyone had ever seen before. Never in the course of world history has there been a nation of the people, by the people, and for the people, with religious liberty, freedom of speech, and confidence in the common man.
Our Founding Fathers sought God’s wisdom in creating the framework of this great nation. Yet, would they even recognize the nation we have be come? Galatians 6:7-9 tells us, “Do not be deceived, God will not be mocked; for whatever a man sows, this he will reap. For one who sows to his own flesh will from the flesh reap corruption, but the one who sows in the Spirit will from the Spirit reap eternal life.”
40 Thrasymachus // Jul 15, 2010 at 10:45 pm
“Every time they disobeyed God and followed after other cultures and other gods, the Lord allowed their enemies to come into the land again and attack them.”
————————————
Yes, I do think that the alien immigration problem and internal racial strife are a result of the sin of White America.
J. Vernon McGee used to say that he did not find the United States mentioned in Scripture. He apparently believed that America would be so weak in the end that it would not longer be a major player on the world stage. McGee believed that God would “judge” America for sin. Just what preachers have in mind when they say this can be uncertain. Does “judge” imply economic disaster, or military failure, or what?
41 Thrasymachus // Jul 15, 2010 at 10:53 pm
So while a given inter-racial marriage may not be a sin, you can know that when an entire nation is going that route, God is judging that nation. Miscegenation on that scale is a form of genocide.
42 Pamela K. // Jul 15, 2010 at 11:13 pm
Thras, I think this might answer some of your questions about God’s judgement.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n23nmz0-7Z0
43 Pamela K. // Jul 16, 2010 at 4:31 am
Rep. Maffei Demands British Aceept Iroquois Lacrosse Team at Tournament
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CX4SLaVwQdI&NR=1
44 David Yeagley // Jul 16, 2010 at 6:47 am
Guys and gals, I want you to know how much I appreaciate your high level converstaion! Really! (You wouldn’t believe the kinds of things that have happened on this site in the past.)
45 Pamela K. // Jul 16, 2010 at 7:49 am
I was kind of worried about your reaction to our conversations. I am really trying to stay on subject this time!
46 Bear // Jul 16, 2010 at 8:21 am
Well 6 comments stayed on topic out of 45 … But who’s counting? Perhaps as someone mentioned a while ago about American Indians not being relevant to anything but history and ourselves was true if this is the most conversation that can be mustered on this topic. Somehow it comes down to religion, blacks, race relations, the end of the world, more bible quotes, the destruction of America, international affairs …. how about a few opinions on the topic if nothing else can be said about it from an informed perspective! Does every thread have to lead to the same worn out arguments? I don’t interject American Indian religion views into items pertaining to Rights of American citizenship, if I am uniformed on a certain topic or fail to provide anythign useful to the conversation I simply don’t respond. Perhaps the same courtesy can be applied? Heck even if something remotely connected to the topic on hand can be made it would be much appreciated!
47 Thrasymachus // Jul 16, 2010 at 11:13 am
Bear,
Yes, you’re right. Our off-topic conversations should be on an instant private messenger service!
I do want American Indians to be respected and have all their rights recognized and protected.
The American Indian is not a cultural or moral threat to me. I do wish that the casino business were structured so as not to be abused. I think that Indians can easily become victims of powerful outsiders — including organized crime — under these circumstances.
I am concerned that the American Indian, having his traditional way of life stolen from him, faces a predicament: how to be economically independent nations with a sufficient degree of sovereignty and independence?
48 Tweets that mention Iroquois Push Nationhood: England prefers Murderous Muslims -- Topsy.com // Jul 16, 2010 at 3:13 pm
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by G_man, A Walker. A Walker said: Iroquois Push Nationhood: England prefers Murderous Muslims http://bit.ly/a0Hy0T [...]
You must log in to post a comment.