YouTube: The Futility of Nationalism that is NOT Christ Centered

In this bi-weekly edition of Swiss Kinist on YouTube, we cover the topic of Atheism; but this time we look at how utterly futile it is to be a Nationalist and advocate for your own people, while holding a worldview that is either Atheistic or Anti-Christ. Yea, we also hold that if what you are doing is not entirely Christ centered, all is for naught. 

The only legitimate reason to advocate for your people, is if there is actually a purpose to life. In Atheism, there is no purpose of life. When we die, that's it. So why waste your time trying to preserve the white race? When we die, we die. And when mankind ceases to exist, nothing will ultimately matter, if there is no God.

So we argue that the Atheist should stop borrowing from the Christian worldview, and live consistent with his own worldview. Live entirely for self indulgence. Stop caring about anything other than your own pleasure and happiness. Why would you sacrifice anything for anyone or anything, if nothing matters in the end? Why are people willing to die for an evolutionary accident, like race?

Race only matters in the context of our Eternal God and Creator, Jesus Christ. He created the races for the purpose of them seeking him, and glorifying him thereby (Act 17:26,27). There are and have been racial distinctions and nations divided out, with purpose and intention, by the Sovereign Hand of God; that we might fulfill God's mandates to make disciples of all NATIONS (plural) that are based on common bloodline, religion, culture, language, etc.

To the White Nationalist who puts race above Christ, we present the following scriptures, which entirely prove the futility of trying to unify the white race, apart from Christ having the preeminence:

"Your country is desolate, your cities are burned with fire: your land, strangers devour it in your presence, and it is desolate, as overthrown by strangers." Isaiah 1:7

"Neither have we obeyed the voice of the Lord our God, to walk in his laws, which he set before us by his servants the prophets. Yea, all Israel have transgressed thy law, even by departing, that they might not obey thy voice; therefore the curse is poured upon us, and the oath that is written in the law of Moses the servant of God, because we have sinned against him."  Daniel 9:10-11

"But if ye will not obey the voice of the Lord, but rebel against the commandment of the Lord, then shall the hand of the Lord be against you, as it was against your fathers." 1 Samuel 12:15

"If ye be willing and obedient, ye shall eat the good of the land: But if ye refuse and rebel, ye shall be devoured with the sword: for the mouth of the Lord hath spoken it." Isaiah 1:19-20

"See, I have set before thee this day life and good, and death and evil; In that I command thee this day to love the Lord thy God, to walk in his ways, and to keep his commandments and his statutes and his judgments, that thou mayest live and multiply: and the Lord thy God shall bless thee in the land whither thou goest to possess it. But if thine heart turn away, so that thou wilt not hear, but shalt be drawn away, and worship other gods, and serve them; I denounce unto you this day, that ye shall surely perish, and that ye shall not prolong your days upon the land, whither thou passest over Jordan to go to possess it.  I call heaven and earth to record this day against you, that I have set before you life and death, blessing and cursing: therefore choose life, that both thou and thy seed may live:" Deuteronomy 30:15-19

"But if they will not obey, I will utterly pluck up and destroy that nation, saith the Lord." Jeremiah 12:17

"If my people, which are called by my name, shall humble themselves, and pray, and seek my face, and turn from their wicked ways; then will I hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin, and will heal their land." 2 Chronicles 7:14

And read ALL of Deuteronomy 28.

Swiss Kinist

YouTube: There is no Good or Evil with the Atheistic Worldview

Atheists are a fickle people. In reality, they are the most dishonest white folks you will ever meet (and most of them are white, from what I have observed). The reason they are dishonest, is so they can be their own god. Yet not a single Atheist I have met is consistent with the doctrines of his worldview. And yes, I am aware, the Atheist will try to play word games and lie, saying that Atheism has no worldview, no dogma, etc. But this is utter nonsense and deception.

Every religion has a worldview. And yes, Atheism is a religion. They will lie until they are blue in the face, denying that Atheism is religious. They will argue and say that Atheism is simply a "non-belief". But does someone with a non-belief:

1) Identify his entire person based on a non-belief?

I don't believe in Aliens (the fictitious kind that come in space ships, etc.), but my Twitter name is not "AlienDenier".

2) Gang up together with others of their "non-belief" to form groups, gang-troll YouTube/Twitter Channels/Accounts. Atheists are relentless in grouping together and attacking, trolling, etc. Christians, particularly those who believe in the Biblical Creation Account.

Yes, Atheists have even go so far as to create their own churches in some situations (look it up, it's true). I would say those kind of Atheists are closer to being honest about the religiosity of their worldview.

The Atheist would argue that he is trying to stop "the evil" of Christianity and/or religion. Yet the very existence of good and evil is established by the Christian worldview. If there is no God, then there is no such thing as good or evil. Things simply just are. Because in order to have absolute good or evil, there must be absolute truth.Without an absolute law-giver, then it's just every man does what is right in his own eyes. So good and evil are defined by man. And man never has a consistent, unchanging opinion.

The Atheist's answer is that whatever society decides is what is good or evil. But he cannot account for the fact that societies have in the past, and will in the future, condone and condemn that same behaviors: For example, even societies that are not Biblical have forbidden Sodomy. Yet America of present condones it. Who is to say which society is right? Is Sodomy good or evil? If it depends on the societal opinion, then you have a clear problem.

The same holds true for the subject of pedophilia. Is it good or evil, in of itself? To the Atheist, it cannot be either good or evil. In present society it is condemned as evil. But that matters little. Only a few decades ago Sodomy was clearly regarded as evil, even among non-Christians. This clearly demonstrates that once society accepts pedophilia as good, Atheists will join right along and condemn those "bigots" who dare speak against it, though they presently speak against it.

Yes, Atheists are hypocrites and they must borrow from the Christian worldview to even assert anything is good or evil. I would take them a lot more serious if they were consistent with what they say they believe; But they want to mix certain aspects of Christ's teachings with their anti-Christ religion. And they are, in fact anti-Christ, in addition to being extremely religious. The difference is, instead of worshiping Christ, who is worthy, they worship self. They won't turn to Christ, not because of lack of evidence of some sort, but because they love their sin and want to rule their own lives. I don't waste my time arguing with them, in most cases.

Enjoy the Video. In a couple of weeks, I will post my 2nd recording, in which I speak against those Atheists that identify as White Advocates.

Atheism: Defining Words, and Truth vs Science

There is going to be a theme of Christianity vs Atheism in the coming posts and videos, and this writing came about while I was preparing an Intro to my newest YouTube video, which will be posted, probably tomorrow. Every now and then I will offer a rebuke to an Atheist on Twitter or YouTube. I don't spend a whole lot of time on them though. I speak the word of God, the truth, and if they have ears to hear, and Christ chooses to draw them, well. If not, I won't lose any sleep over it. And I care little about winning an argument. I have better things to do. But I am commanded to speak the truth and preach the gospel, so thus I do.

I take this approach because the problem with the Atheist has little, if anything to do with him not receiving satisfactory answers to his objections. He loves his sin, and wants to be his own god. That is the true reason for his rejection of God and Christ. So to spend my valuable time that I could be doing better things, which glorify God, on arguing with someone (and trying to prove the Bible true to someone) who has his ears closed, is foolish, to say the least.

Science vs. Religion

I will attempt to touch on this in more detail in the future, hopefully in a video some time; but Christians really need to stop trying to prove that Christianity is "scientific". In one sense it is; because no scriptural truth is outside the realm of actual, real truth. Yet, when you define "science" the way an Atheist does, Christianity is very unscientific, or at least should be.

The scientific community is a group of God-haters who interpret everything in the universe by an anti-Christ worldview. The interpretation they ascribe to verifiable facts is then called "science". It contradicts the Bible, sure. But that is because of the games they play with definitions. The Bible does not contradict truth, it contradicts science. But science today contradicts science of yesteryear. Was the science of past years not really science? Those scientists of the past certainly believed they held the truth, as they condemned the holy scriptures. And yet, as the years go by, and we discover more, and have newer interpretations, which contradict current science, will that make today's science, not really science?

Dictionary Definitions Do Not Equate to Truth

"Look it up in the dictionary", the Atheist scoffs, when he sits and claims that Atheism is not a religion. But as I like to point out, every definition in the dictionary is based on the worldview of the person defining the word. So if a Christ-hater is defining marriage, as with today's dictionary, it says this:

Marriage
noun
(broadly) any of the diverse forms of interpersonal union established in various parts of the world to form a familial bond that is recognized legally, religiously, or socially, granting the participating partners mutual conjugal rights and responsibilities and including, for example, opposite-sex marriage, same-sex marriage, plural marriage, and arranged marriage:

Anthropologists say that some type of marriage has been found in every known human society since ancient times.

Yet if a Biblical Christian is defining marriage, such as Noah Webster in his 1828 dictionary, we show quite a different definition of the same word:

Marriage
MAR'RIAGE, noun [Latin mas, maris.] The act of uniting a man and woman for life; wedlock; the legal union of a man and woman for life. marriage is a contract both civil and religious, by which the parties engage to live together in mutual affection and fidelity, till death shall separate them. marriage was instituted by God himself for the purpose of preventing the promiscuous intercourse of the sexes, for promoting domestic felicity, and for securing the maintenance and education of children.

Marriage is honorable in all and the bed undefiled. Hebrews 13:4

One definition makes it clear that marriage is defined in terms of a man and a woman, and that the terms of marriage are for life, and that it is an institution which God created. It also defines it as being sacred, in that, if we have a dishonorable marriage, God will judge us. This is the Christian definition.

The Humanist, or Atheistic definition defines marriage in terms of which, it does not need to be between a man and woman. It does not include any moral obligations either. And it is something instituted by man, rather than God. Quite a huge change in the definition of what is the same word, in not even 200 years.

So for an Atheist to say, "Look at the dictionary" as if this were some kind of authority for truth, this is utterly ridiculous. I might actually not chalk this up to dishonesty as much as stupidity in some cases. It is probably a combination of both. But I think it is more of the way that Atheists have trained their entire beings to be dishonest, in order to avoid being accountable to their Creator, the Lord Jesus Christ.

Truth vs Science

Coming back around to the original thought: Christians need to refrain from trying to prove the Bible is "scientific". Why? Because in thus doing, they are admitting to the Atheists that science is God, rather than Christ being God. Society has been trained to believe that whatever the Scientists tell us is true, must be true. To the Christian defending that the Bible is accurate with Science, he admits that Science is the ultimate arbitrator of truth; he tries hard to prove that the Bible is in step with the true God: Science. It really should be the other way around, and it used to be.

When the Bible states something is true, it is true regardless of what some man thinks is true, based on his faulty human faculties. So if a Scientist is researching and his findings (or what he perceives) contradicts the word of God, he ought to conclude that his reasoning, his interpretation, etc. are in error, not the word of God.

This is notwithstanding the fact that the scientific community is dishonest and untrustworthy. When a study is conducted and the scientists performing the study tell us their findings, how do we know of 100 % certainty they are telling us the full truth? We don't. (See Kent Hovind's 'Lies in the Textbooks'
which exposes many things evolutionists have taught through the years that have been proven to be manipulative lies.) We have to trust them. To say that "science proves it" is to put an unquestionable faith in the word of the scientists. Yet, Atheists ridicule Christians for trusting the Word of God. The total irony, right?

Consider this article on Dr. Mercola's website regarding studies about Drug Safety. Doctor Mercola exposes how scientific studies are manipulated to promote the lies that Drug companies want us to believe. Any honest person seeing these kind of facts knows that the scientific community is entirely untrustworthy. They honor profit and the glory of man rather than truth.

The Atheist will usually respond to this by calling us a "conspiracy theorist" or whatever. So a group of scientists and/or government agencies are incapable of conspiring together for evil? They certainly want us to believe that the German government under Adolph Hitler conspired to murder 6 million Jews.

The Bible is very clear that conspiracies happen (Psalm 2) and history proves this out as well. The Biblical Christian knows full well, like the founders of America did, that man is utterly depraved without Christ. The only way a scientist could be fully trustworthy is if he is submitted to the Lord Jesus Christ in his life.

Top all that with this question: What reason does an Atheist Scientist have to tell the truth? If he can gain more money, more power, higher honor, or simply promote his own agenda, by telling falsehoods, twisting the truth, telling partial truths, etc., why wouldn't he? He believes he is accountable to no one, and that man is the ultimate authority. He believes that the highest being is man, and the only accountability he will ever face is via man. And if he is convinced he will never become accountable in this life for his dishonesty, what incentive does he have to be truthful? He has none. And his wicked heart (as we all have without Christ) will always lead him toward sin and death, and to do and say what gives him the most pleasure, happiness, and things that he wants.

It all comes down to a matter of who we are presupposing holds the keys of the truth. The Atheist and the Christian of today's America believe that man's opinion, interpretation, and reasoning should be trusted, and should be presupposed as being true. The true Christian presupposes the Word of God is the truth. Both camps are presupposing someone is true. One presupposes man is always true, and the other, God. Thus back to the original sin in the garden. It all comes down to who is God. Is the LORD God, or is man god? As for me and my house, we choose the LORD.

Swiss Kinist

Hans Gygax as Guest on True Sons of Abraham Podcast

April 9th, I was a guest on Clement Pulaski's True Sons of Abraham, podcast. We discussed Donald Trump and a few other similar topics, from the Christian Nationalist, Christ-centered worldview. On the YouTube video below, I give a short video introduction to tell a little bit more about Clement and the important work that he is doing on his website. Clement has also recorded several other off the cuff podcasts since our shared podcast. You can access his full list of podcasts here, but I also encourage you to view his articles and his online books as well.

Unfortunately, due to my family's busy schedule, it took me a little while to get this posted. I do plan on recording another couple of videos this weekend, God-willing. They will probably be short in nature, but to the point:

1) A message regarding White Advocates who profess Christianity

2) A message regarding White Advocates who are Anti-Christ


After these, I have a vision to perhaps record another product review video or two. Over time, you should be able to see the kind of products we buy, and why. And maybe I can convince a few of you to put a little more thinking and prayer into the purchases you make and the other "little" decisions of life.

Comments and suggestions welcome!

What I Mean When I Say I Am Anti-Technology

A beloved brother in Christ asked me this question on my recent video:

What do you mean when you say you're "anti-technology"???

I want to start out by listing just a few of the resources that have inspired me in this area over the past several years:

Surviving Off Off-Grid: Decolonizing the Industrial Mind by Michael Bunker

North Country Farmer; a Christian Agrarian website hosted by Scott M Terry

The Biblical Basis for Christian Agrarianism by Howard King - Audio Sermon

The Village vs The City by Howard King - Audio Sermon
(Both sermons are on the same page.)

Henry and the Great Society by H.L. Roush
(This is a PDF version of the book, but you can buy a hard copy of it from many different online sources. The ending is not good, but the main principles taught throughout the book are very good.)

Yes, I Am Anti-Technology 

When I say I am "Anti-Technology" I am half joking, but it is yet based on the truth of what I believe. I don't believe we should embrace technology just to embrace technology. I believe there is plenty of technology that might make things more convenient or easier, that should be rejected. An extreme example would be, if there were a technology that could track all of your thoughts. The reasoning behind such a technology, like with most technology that intrudes on liberty, would be that it prevents crime, or that it would help solve crime. In other words, increased technology, like most oppressive laws, are based on "safety" or some form of supposed societal good. Although it might be true that it could "help" in those ways, I am against such technology because that technology is not worthy enough to lose our freedoms over. I use this same reasoning as my basis to be against technology on less extreme things (even though they are not actually much "less extreme" when you really consider it). Is it worth it for our societies to have conveniences like automobiles, factories, the electrical grid system, air travel, cellular phones/mobile devices, etc., etc.? I would raise an argument that more evil has come from these things, than good. I believe that we lose more than we gain. 

Biblical Christianity vs Christian Humanism

The reason why I believe most people would find the above statement to be borderline lunatic, is because they have embraced a humanist philosophy. While Rushdoony in no way endorsed my view, his view has shaped my thinking in this area. He explains that to modern man, because he has embraced humanism, man's life is the most sacred thing. This is in his section of The Institutes of Biblical Law where he speaks about the Death Penalty. Let me explain: The Humanist thinker is generally against the death penalty. In his mind, because man is god, man's life is most sacred. Man's life is of higher value than justice, righteousness, and the glory of God. So to put someone to death is immoral because it violates these principles of humanism. 

In a God-centered society, the Death Penalty is used "to put away the evil". The glory of God is of highest value. Not only this, but it can be argued that God still yet places high value on human life; when a murderer is put to death, society is spared from further evil (in the form of murder). I argue the same points for being "anti-technology". Will some forms of technology save certain individual lives? Certainly. But is that more important than being able to have a society that glorifies God, and that has liberty? The humanist thinks so; because human life trumps the glory of God. Furthermore, I would argue that such technology actually produces much death. Sure, you can rush your child to the hospital in an ambulance and save his life due to the automobile. But how many people are killed in car accidents every year? But even if this were not so, I would still choose against having that technology due to the former points. I would argue this on most things that have come from the Industrial Revolution. The Industrial Revolution is from the pit of hell, in the fruit it has borne.

A More Refined Definition

Do I still use these technologies? Yes. There isn't really any escaping it. But if/when new communities are built, when the current economic system collapses (it is not a matter of if, but when), and if I am a leader of a community, or have any authority, I am going to push for our societies to have as little of this as possible. I don't have all the details figured out. And I don't believe using the technology is evil in of itself. But I think the world would be better off for the glory of God if it didn't have certain forms of technology.

So I am not actually against technology. A hammer is technology. So is a screwdriver. And a rake. And a shovel. I appreciate these forms of technology. But I do not appreciate drones, or security cameras, or metal detectors, or naked body scanners, and anything that is oppressive in of itself, or that can lead to oppression. I do not endorse technology that causes the family to scatter, the community to be broken up, and that induces individualism (rather than community living). This is all part of my belief in Kinism. 

If we go back to the local community, using God's natural means to live our lives (rather than worshiping self and what we can do), living off the land, using what he has provided (animals rather than machines is just one example), then Kinism is the natural result. This is why Kinists are wasting their time if all they do is pursue intellectual/doctrinal/political matters. We need to get practical first, and above all. The other things have their place, but the practical is where the meat is. And the chief of practical living is that every detail of all our actions are measured carefully by the word of God, and we honor Christ above all else. May we all seek to do this, and repent if we are not currently so doing.

I am just scratching the surface on this all. I have not even touched on several things: How certain technologies have caused us to lose many of our jobs; what is the result? The corporate masters get more rich, thereby oppressing us more. We have millions of people without jobs that otherwise would have. Multiply this with the abuse that corporations have done to the earth (and no, I am not an earth worshiper, but we are still responsible to be good stewards). Add to that, how that our health has deteriorated due to our lack of physical activity. 

We once were a strong people of courage and bravery, and were robust, tough and gritty. Now we are a bunch of pacified sissies who don't know how to fix anything, and don't know how to do anything. If the grid of electric and of "Just in Time" goods were to fail tomorrow, probably 90% or more of people would die because they have no clue how to live independent of it. 

Our DNA is being genetically altered by radio, internet, microwave, electric frequencies. The list can go on and on. I would keep going but I hope we all get the point now. I am Anti-Technology, and that for good reason. At least, according to this crazy blog writer, I am.

Swiss Kinist

American Made French Press Review: The Portland Press

Our latest YouTube video is out, and this time it is (finally) a product review. I have always had the heart to want to review products and/or local businesses. I had meant to do so through this blog, but never got around to it.

If you know anything about me, you know that I push hard for buying from local, small businesses. I am anti-corporation, anti-technology (ironically, as I type on a computer and create YouTube videos), and pro-local community. The goal, eventually, is to separate from the grid system, as described in Michael Bunker's Surviving Off Off-Grid book, which is an excellent read. It will challenge the way you think about everything. It is not a "How to Do" book, but a "How to Think" book.

Anyhow, this review of is The Portland Press. We ran into it by the Providence of God; because all attempts to search for American Made French Presses failed, when our vintage, German-Made French Press had the glass break, and we were unable to get a replacement for it.

I did this review for free, and without any prompting from the company. My goal is to get people to stop buying from huge corporation, and buy from local and small businesses. I have a loose system of how I prioritize my spending:

1) Small Local Business
2) Small Business
3) Local Business
4) American Made
5) German Made
6) Made somewhere known for quality (for example, my Vintage Newsboy Hat, that you see on the Intro Video, was made in Scottland-- the one I have worn in the latest videos was made in the USA)
7) Everything else

Of course, price does sometimes come into play, and depending on what we are buying, small compromises have to be made. But these are my goals when I buy a product. When I go to a restaurant or something like that, I am looking for local, and I am looking at the kind of ingredients; does this business use local or organic food?

All that to say, enjoy the video review. If you have any questions, put it in the comments on a YouTube video, or on my Google Plus page.

Swiss Kinst

Swiss Kinist YouTube #2 Donald Trump is Controlled Opposition

YouTube Video Concerning Donald Trump

Our next video is up and loaded to YouTube: Donald Trump is Controlled Opposition. Unfortunately, there seem to be very few Kinists and/or folks on the alternate right who are not falling down at the feet of Donald Trump.

The video highlights some of, although not even close to all of the reasons why neither I nor Bret McAtee, support Donald Trump. In addition to what I mention, I want to key in on an important point in all this: Kinists have been known to chide anyone who has supported politicians, over the years.

Rewind

When Gary Demar of American Vision came out in support of John McCain, 8 years ago, citing the doctrine of the lesser of two evils, Kinists were all over him. Demar argued that it was a waste to vote 3rd party, and that you should vote for John McCain, so that you could stop the election of Marxist Barack Hussein Obama.

I remember at the time, I tended to agree with Demar. I think I actually did vote for John McCain; from the perspective that he would do less damage to our liberties, and more potential good, than Obama would. So yes, McCain is a screwed up guy, but he isn't an ultra Marxist like Obama. So vote for McCain, right? No, not according to Kinists or the alternate right.

Fast Forward

Yet fast forward 8 years, and we have Kinists and their non-Christian companions falling all over Trump, praising him, defending him with vigor, and speaking as if he were the next Adolph Hitler (in a good way), even though none of what he believes, says, or has done in the past would give credence to this kind of faith in Trump.

Trump was already pretty bad, and guys like Nathanael Strickland of Faith and Heritage readily admitted Trump's many problems. But... it was always followed up by the belief that Trump has a chance to do something good that the previous politicians never have done. Now, more and more things come out to show he is truly not on our side. Take 25-30 minutes of your life to listen/watch Trump literally worship Israel and the "Jewish State" in his speech for AIPAC. 

What will the next excuse for Trump be? Anti-Jewishness is one of the hallmarks of Kinism. We see clearly that Jewish elites are a cancer in society, and the Jewish people as a whole (although not every single Jew) are anti-white, anti-Christ, and enemies of everything we believe in. Yet, despite Trump's commitment to "The Jewish State", no one in our movement will yet humble themselves to abandon their faith in Donald Trump.

So what is the anticipated response I am expecting? Well, something like Gary Demar's lesser of two evils justification: He is not as bad as the other guys. Then we have to ask ourselves: okay, why not vote for someone like Ted Cruz, if I believe maybe he is not as bad as Trump? After all, he has a better pro-gun record than Trump does, and holds a lot of our liberties very highly, as demonstrated by his voting record.

The Solution

The solution is to go back to how we started; withdrawal from any hope in the political process. Donald Trump is not an exception to the rule. He is simply a better thought-out, more deceptive version of the false choice the Jewish elite are giving us. He is controlled opposition.

All the hype about Donald Trump being good for Kinists, White Advocates, the Alternate Right, or any such group, is all false-hype and Parrotted (pun intended) lies, that have been repeated so often, that these groups actually think that Trump intends on helping us, and actually cares about us. He won't, and he doesn't.

If it wasn't so grieving, it would be comedy to see all the Twitter posts that alternate right folks make about Trump. Here is comedic example of how a dialogue might work, based on what I see on Twitter:

Dialogue 

Alternate Right: Trump is going to do this, and that, and that, and this!! Yeah!!

Me: But wait, Trump never even said he was promising that. Besides, even if he was, since when do politicians keep their promises?

Alternate Right: Well, I just believe (faith) that he will! Yeah! Vote for Trump or you are a Cuck!!!

Okay, A Practical Solution

The only solution, as stated previously in other articles, and in the video, is to turn to the Lord Jesus Christ. We need to build godly communities, and separate ourselves from the system, a little at a time. We need to build an alternate community; not online, but in real life.

You would be much better off backing a project like Beyond Off Grid, which has receive far less of support than it deserves. I mentioned it previously here. Such a project will do 1000 times more for the white race, and for Christianity, than supporting a political candidate ever will. It is time for us to repent of our inaction in the important things, and our action in vain and futile efforts.

Swiss Kinist