AR Articles on Christianity
Christianity Turns Brown (Oct. 2002)
The Christian Doctrine of Nations (Jul. 2001)
Christianity, Pro and Con (Sep. 1997)
Towards Renewal and Renaissance (Aug. 1996)
In the September 1997 issue of AR there
was a debate on whether Christianity is at least partly to blame for
the demise of Western Civilization and the suicidal course being pursued
by Western peoples. Both positions were ably argued, and on the whole
I had to agree that the key to the controversy was a distinction between
historical Christianity and contemporary Christianity. As Michael
W. Masters ("How Christianity Harms the Race") acknowledged
implicitly and Victor Craig ("Defense of the Faith") acknowledged
explicitly, the two are not the same; and, as Mr. Craig argued persuasively,
historical Christianity has not been indifferent to the fate of the
In the September 1997 issue of AR there was a debate on whether Christianity is at least partly to blame for the demise of Western Civilization and the suicidal course being pursued by Western peoples. Both positions were ably argued, and on the whole I had to agree that the key to the controversy was a distinction between historical Christianity and contemporary Christianity. As Michael W. Masters ("How Christianity Harms the Race") acknowledged implicitly and Victor Craig ("Defense of the Faith") acknowledged explicitly, the two are not the same; and, as Mr. Craig argued persuasively, historical Christianity has not been indifferent to the fate of the European peoples.
It would be hard to overestimate the extent to which churches have surrendered to the leftist racial world view. Two years ago, the Pope said this about the inundation of Western countries by Third-World "refugees:" "These foreigners are above all our brothers, and no one should be excepted for reasons of race and religion." Of course, one could argue that race and religion are the two most important reasons to prevent foreigners from settling in one’s homeland. A common race is the foundation of any true nation, while a common religion is the foundation of a common moral code.
Leaving aside the race question for a moment, what kind of insanity has gripped the Catholic hierarchy that it would maintain that a Christian country should not keep out non-Christians? Whatever the answer, Protestant churches in Northern Europe and North America suffer a similar affliction. While liberal Protestants prate about the endless benefits of "diversity," conservative Protestants boast they will convert the newcomers. So lost have they become in the mists of political correctness, so effeminate has become their Christianity, they do not realize the erection of mosques, Hindu temples, and Buddhist shrines in the formerly Christian lands of the West is not a sign of progress in world evangelism but is terrible regress and defeat.
If the children of these pagan newcomers are, indeed, to be converted from the religions of their parents the contest will be between evangelicals and hedonistic liberals. Is there any doubt that the latter will sweep the field? These children’s parents came here to enjoy the good life and escape the challenges of building up their own nations. Their children will inherit this materialistic and self-seeking orientation. Christians can boast all they want about tolerance and love of foreigners, but immigration is only further marginalizing Christianity in our culture.
Some Christian leaders have been so bold as to call on the Western peoples to commit racial suicide so as to make the newcomers feel more welcome. Billy Graham himself recently told white Christians they had a moral duty to foster total racial integration "in our homes, in our worship services, even in our marriages." Of course, if every young European in the world were to take a non-European wife or husband, the European people would cease to exist in just one generation.
It would be hard to overestimate the extent to which churches have surrendered to the leftist world view.
As far as I know, not a single Christian leader condemned, or even criticized, Billy Graham’s call for white extinction as a solution to the race problem. Billy Graham’s position is similar to that of the former Republican congressman from Southern California, Robert Dornan, who said before a USA Today editorial board meeting: "I want to see America stay a nation of immigrants, and if we lose our Northern European stock — your coloring and mine, blue eyes and fair hair — tough! So what if 5,000 years from now we’re all going to have a golden tan… . We’re all going to be blended together because of travel, and because of the information highway." On the race and nationality questions the churches are following the lead of the dominant secular culture, not the other way around.
While few evangelical leaders are as bold as Rev. Graham, many come close. The former director of the Christian Coalition, Ralph Reed, has been particularly eager for the "Christian Right" to support the racial agenda of the Secular Left. At the first Congress of Racial Justice and Reconciliation, held in Washington, DC, in May 1997, Mr. Reed agreed that racial "injustice" was widespread in bank loans, housing, inner-city funding, and in prison sentences. He also agreed there had been a white racist conspiracy to burn black churches. (Readers of AR know that this "conspiracy" was a hoax.) The Christian Coalition launched something called the Samaritan Project, to help rebuild black churches.
Nor should it be forgotten that Mr. Reed and the Christian Coalition are largely responsible for stopping Pat Buchanan’s insurgent drive for the Republican presidential nomination in 1996. After winning in New Hampshire, Mr. Buchanan had only to win in conservative South Carolina to establish himself as the front runner ahead of Bob Dole. Mr. Reed and other coalition members simply repeated the leftist media charges that Buchanan was a "racist" and an "extremist," thus helping Mr. Dole win the primary and nomination.
About the same time, the Christian Coalition helped defeat proposed legislation in Congress that would have cut legal immigration by a modest one-third on the grounds that it would have prevented immigrants from bringing in relatives, thereby thwarting "family reunification." Such an objection is sentimental nonsense, for it is immigrants who first chose to separate from their families and people. Americans are not obligated to end such freely chosen separations by throwing open their borders. [On this incident, see the remarks made by the president of the American Immigration Control Foundation, John Vinson, in his pamphlet "Immigration and Nation, a Biblical View" (AICF, 1997), p. 16.]
Most Christians never mention, much less oppose, policies that directly harm whites: racial quotas, affirmative action, anti-discrimination laws, forced busing, extortion-motivated "civil rights" lawsuits, black-on-white hate crimes, interracial marriage, and Third-World immigration. They believe Martin Luther King, Jr. was an American Christian hero who truly deserves to be the only American with a national holiday in his honor. They believe "racism" is a sin, but a sin only when it is white racial consciousness or loyalty, never non-white racial consciousness or identity. They believe whites have a moral and Christian obligation to "bridge the racial divide," integrate their churches, reach out to people of color, etc. It therefore seems a bad joke to speak of Christian conservatives or the Christian Right, for there is nothing conservative about acquiescing in a demographic revolution to turn whites into a minority.
White Christians became racial liberals mainly because the Church has been besieged by the same forces that now dominate every other Western institution. The universalistic and egalitarian ideas of the Enlightenment have now fully penetrated Western culture. Feminist and socialist values have worked their way into Western culture and have overthrown traditional ideals of manhood, patriarchy, and chivalry. Biblical illiteracy, illogic, and historical ignorance have created an environment in which the Scriptures have been perverted into a religious justification for racial liberalism.
There are many examples of such perversion. Christian ministers and writers love to cite the Apostle Paul, who wrote that "there is no distinction between Jew and Greek, for the same Lord over all is rich to all who call upon Him" (Romans 10:12, New American Standard Bible; all quotations are from this translation, which is known for its accuracy.) They argue this means we should make no racial or ethnic distinctions or even think in racial terms. Paul is said to be conveying the same idea in another epistle: "There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free man, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus" (Galatians 3:28). In context it is clear these two passages reveal God’s offer of salvation to all regardless of race, nationality, social standing, or sex. They do not mean — and as we will see Paul himself makes it clear he does not mean — that such distinctions should be ignored, that they are unimportant, that acting upon them is sinful, or that they should be overthrown.
If the liberal interpretation of these passages were correct, God would be not only a racial liberal but a socialist and a feminist as well. If these passages endorse the abolition of racial identity and distinctions based on them, they also endorse the obliteration of sex distinctions. And if the Bible supports racial liberalism, why has this fact come to light only in the past century, a century known for its secularism and declining moral and cultural standards?
The Old Testament
Contrary to what one has heard from the pulpit or on Christian radio, the Bible supports racial preservation and even separation. The Bible teaches that mankind is composed not of an amorphous mass of individuals but of nations. It also teaches that the basis of all genuine nations is a common ethnic stock, which is more important even than a common language, culture, political allegiance, or locale. The Bible praises homogeneity as a blessing, and posits it as the basis of love, friendship, social peace, and national harmony. The Bible also sanctions love of nation and fatherland, a virtue antagonistic to indiscriminate and large-scale immigration.
According to the famous "Table of Nations" in Genesis 10, God organized mankind into discrete nations in the aftermath of the Great Flood. He created three sets of nations, each set descending from one of the three sons of Noah: Fourteen nations from Japheth; 30 from Ham; and 26 from Shem. After listing the progenitors of each of the nations that sprang from Shem, Genesis uses a formula closely repeated for Ham and Japheth, "These are the sons of Shem, according to their families, according to their languages, by their lands, according to their nations" (Gen. 10:31). The Genesis account of the dispersal of the nations concludes, "These are the families of the sons of Noah, according to their genealogies, by their nations; and out of these the nations were separated on the earth after the flood" (Gen. 10:32). These passages make clear that the essential constituent element of each nation is common ancestry, together with a "land" and a distinctive language. This is God’s creation, with no indication that it is anything other than entirely in accord with His will.
Genesis describes the areas in which these different nations settled in terms of migration patterns that conform to a broad division of races. For centuries there was universal agreement in Christendom that the Europeans were descended from Japheth, the Semites (Jews, Persians, Syrians, Arabs, and Asians) from Shem, and the Africans (including Egyptians and Canaanites) from Ham. However literally or figuratively one chooses to interpret this account, Genesis clearly divides the peoples of the earth into groups of related but racially distinct peoples.
Modern Biblical commentators and Christian leaders have tried to deny the obvious by insisting that the division of nations is not providential but accidental. They believe God intended the nations to be all as one (i.e. to cease being distinct nations). Therefore, they urge Christians to do all they can to restore mankind’s lost unity by tearing down national boundaries, promoting mass immigration, teaching English as a universal language, and intermarrying freely with members of other racial families.
This interpretation suffers from several flaws. First, if God intended mankind to be as one, why did He create many nations in the first place? Second, it is contradicted by the order of the Genesis narrative. The Table of Nations comes before the story of the Tower of Babel, indicating that God’s ordering and separating of the nations was part of His plan from the beginning. The sons of Noah refused to follow God’s clear mandate to separate and fill the earth. Instead, they gathered together, founded a city, and built a huge tower as a symbol of their power and independence. However, God’s sovereign purpose cannot be frustrated by the designs of men: "The Lord confused the language of all the earth; and from there the Lord scattered them abroad over the face of all the earth" (Gen. 11:9).
The scattering was neither arbitrary nor chaotic. According to the Biblical account, people moved with their nations in an orderly exodus that fulfilled God’s purpose. As we learn in Deuteronomy, God gave each nation or people its own lands and separated these lands by territorial boundaries: "When the Most High gave the nations their inheritance, when He separated the sons of man, He set the boundaries of the people" (Deuteronomy 32:8).
The third flaw of the modernist interpretation of Genesis 10 and 11 — and from a Christian perspective the most dangerous — is that it repeats the sin of the people who built the Tower of Babel. The modern desire for global unity, amalgamation of peoples, destruction of territorial boundaries, English as a universal language, and construction of a world government is difficult to see as anything other than a sinful desire to rebuild the Tower of Babel and create an autonomous humanistic order independent of God. It is a rebellious project that defies God’s plan for world order based on discrete nations each residing within its own lands.
Fourth, the project for global unity sullies the beauty and diversity of God’s human creation, in that it suggests that the existence of different races, which vary markedly in physical appearance, is a mistake that man is to remedy by racial intermarriage. In this warped version of creation, God is the bungler and man the redeemer.
Noah and His Sons Building
the Ark, Raphael, 1517.
Throughout the Old Testament, Biblical writers consistently refer to mankind as composed of distinct peoples and nations, and not as an undifferentiated mass of individuals. In fact, Hebrew has no equivalent for the English word "people," meaning mankind in general. The psalmist is therefore talking about separate peoples when he declares that all the non-Jewish nations are in rebellion against God, and asks "why are the nations in an uproar and the peoples devising a vain thing?" (Psalm 2:1 NASB). When the psalmist speaks of the day when all mankind shall acknowledge the one true God, he shouts "Praise the Lord, all nations; laud Him all peoples" (Psalm 117:1). Likewise, "All the nations whom You have made shall come and worship before You, O Lord" (Psalm 86:9). Although the nations join in praising God, they by no means lose their national identities.
The New Testament
The New Testament reaffirms the national and ethnic distinctions of the Old Testament, if anything, in stronger and clearer terms. Unlike Hebrew, the Greek in which the New Testament was written does have a word for mankind, anthropon; however, it is used infrequently and never suggests the elimination of the national or racial divisions of mankind. Luke wrote that God "made from one [Adam] every nation [ethnos] of mankind [anthropon] to live on all the face of the earth, having determined their appointed times, and the boundaries of their habitation" (Acts 17:26). Christ himself commanded his disciples to go and "make disciples of all the nations [ethna]" (Matthew 28:19).
Paul — though often cited in Christian attacks on race and nationality — both in his writings and personal loyalties clearly supports the view that nationality is based on a common ethnic origin. To begin with, one can well ask to what nation did Paul belong, and on what basis? He was born a Roman citizen in the province of Cilicia in Asia Minor. He spoke both Hebrew and Greek fluently. Religiously, he was not only Jewish but a Pharisee. He converted to Christianity. In answer to our questions about his nationality, the modern Christian could offer four possible answers: Paul was a Cilician (place of birth); he was a Roman (citizenship); he was a Greek (language); he was a Jew but became a Christian (religion).
According to Paul himself, all four answers would be wrong, for Paul on numerous occasions, after he became a Christian, identified himself as belonging to the Jewish nation on the basis of birth and heritage — not merely a Jew but of a particular tribe. He was, he claimed, "of the nation of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew of the Hebrews" (Philippians 3:5). When he wrote to the Romans in the city of Rome, he did not claim to be Roman (except by citizenship) but Jewish: "I too am an Israelite, a descendant of Abraham, of the tribe of Benjamin" (Romans 11:1). He referred to the Israelites as his "brethren, my kinsmen according to the flesh, who are Israelites" (Romans 9:3, 4). He also referred to the Roman Christians as his "brethren" (Romans 11:25), but he is clearly speaking in a spiritual sense.
Thus, Paul made a distinction between his ethnic nation (Israel) and his spiritual nation (the Christians). Far from the latter superseding or abolishing the former, as most modern Christian leaders would claim, Paul affirms and honors both as an integral part of his identity. He hoped that more of his ethnic kinsmen would come to accept Christ as the Son of God: "Brethren [Roman Christians], my heart’s desire and my prayer to God for them [Israel] is for their salvation" (Romans 10:1 NKJV). He also expressed confidence that God will not "reject His people," meaning the Jews (Romans 11:1).
Paul uses the Greek word laos (a people) to refer to both an ethnic people, as in the people of Israel, and a spiritual people, as in the people of God. Paul’s use of that word in both contexts proves that ethnicity is not rendered obsolete or illegitimate by coming to Christ.
Paul’s ethnic identification is consistent with everything we know about the ancients, whether Greek, Roman, German, Celt, or Semite. They understood a nation to be a people of a common ancestry or race. The Roman Empire was not a nation, nor did any ancient author consider it to be a nation. They understood it to be an empire made up of many nations.
Differences between English and the Greek of the New Testament can cause misunderstanding. Christ’s commandment that Christians should "love their enemies" sounds in English like a radical, all-embracing injunction that would do away with ethnic or national differences. Greek, however, distinguishes between personal enemies and foreign enemies. It has three words for enemy: polemios (a foreign enemy), agonistes (a competitor or rival), and echthros (a private enemy; literally, one whom you hate). When Christ commands Christians to "love their enemies" (Matthew 5:44; Luke 6:27,35), he uses the word for one’s private enemy, that is to say someone with whom a Christian has quarreled. Never is this injunction applied to foreign enemies, the enemies of one’s people.
The Bible endorses ethnic homogeneity as a positive good that contributes to peace, harmony, and happiness, whether it be in marriage, friendship, or society. The Hebrews were forbidden, first by their patriarchs and later by God Himself, to marry the sons and daughters of the peoples of the land God had promised them. Abraham made his chief servant swear not to search for a wife for his son Isaac "from the daughters of the Canaanites [Hamites], among whom I live; but you will go to my country and to my relatives [descendants of Shem], and take a wife for my son Isaac" (Gen. 24:3,4).
When Jacob and his family (sons, daughters, and grandchildren), 70 persons in all, went to Egypt to dwell in the land of Goshen under the protection of Pharaoh, only one son, Simeon, had a Canaanite wife in addition to a Hebrew wife (Genesis 46:8-26). Thus, out of all the grandchildren of Jacob, only one was part Hamitic. Upon their return to the Promised Land some 400 years later, Moses forbade the children of Israel to intermarry with the Canaanites, whose land they were preparing to invade and occupy (Exodus 34:12-16; Deuteronomy 7:3).
Tower of Babel, Peter Bruegel the Elder, 1563.
Modern theologians, Bible commentators, and pastors are quick to insist that God’s prohibition of such marriages was based on religion rather than race or ethnicity. Their shocking conclusion is that while white Christians are forbidden to marry non-Christian whites they are free to marry non-whites so long as they are Christians. They fail to see that God’s prohibition was based on both religious and racial considerations. God does not condemn interethnic or interracial marriage per se, but He does lay down a principle that would forbid it as a common or widespread practice. The late Rousas J. Rushdoony points out that Biblical law and example is against all kinds of unequal yoking: "The burden of the law is thus against inter-religious, interracial, and inter-cultural marriages, in that they normally go against the very community which marriage is designed to establish" (The Institutes of Biblical Law, 1973). Many scriptural examples support this interpretation, as we shall see.
Liberal Christians repeatedly point out that God blessed certain interethnic marriages. The examples they cite are always between Israelites and members of other Semitic peoples who were their ethnic kin (descendants of Shem). When Joseph was serving the Pharaoh of Egypt as his chief adviser and servant, he married a member of the ruling class of Egypt and had sons by her, including Manasseh and Ephraim, both of whom would become the patriarchs of two of the twelve tribes of Israel (Genesis 41:8,50-52). However, his wife, as well as the entire ruling class of Egypt of that time, were Hyksos (a Semitic people who were ruling Egypt at the time). They were thus the cousins, or racial kin, of the Hebrews. Undoubtedly, this ethnic and cultural kinship had something to do with the favor with which the Pharaoh and his people viewed the Hebrews during this period.
When Moses fled Egypt some 400 hundred years later, he sought refuge among the Semitic Midianites, a people descended from Abraham and Keturah, and he took a wife from among them. He thus did not violate God’s prohibition against intermarrying with the cursed Hamitic peoples. (After Ham showed disrespect to his father Noah, God cursed him and all his descendants — Gen. 9:20-25.) Nor does the famous marriage between Boaz (an Israelite) and Ruth (a Moabite) violate the principle of ethnic consanguinity, for the Moabites too were Semites, being descendants of Abraham’s nephew Lot.
Foreign marriages in the Bible are almost always portrayed as acts of unfaithfulness, disobedience, or lust. God promised Abraham many descendants and to make of them a great nation. Abraham believed the Lord, but his wife Sarah was too old to bear children. She therefore permitted Abraham to have intercourse with their Egyptian maid, Hagar. As God intended miraculously to open Sarah’s womb, the result was that Abraham soon had two sons, Ishmael by Hagar (a Hamite) and Isaac by Sarah (a Semite). The result of this mixed lineage was a divided and unhappy household. Eventually, Abraham sent Hagar and Ishmael away. As Hagar chose an Egyptian wife for Ishmael, the Ishmaelites gradually merged into the surrounding Hamitic peoples and soon ceased to exist as a separate people.
Later, Esau (Isaac and Rebekah’s eldest son) demonstrated his unfaithfulness to God and his people, as well as his lack of sexual restraint, by marrying two Canaanite women who became a "grief of mind to Isaac and Rebekah" (Gen. 26:34, 35). The descendants of Esau’s marriage (the Edomites) became persistent enemies of the Hebrews.
The great Israelite hero Samson had a weakness for foreign women. Against the wishes of his parents, he took a wife from among the Philistines, and he afterward frequented Philistine harlots. It was this lack of sexual restraint and his unwillingness to abide by God’s laws that led to his blindness and death at the hands of his enemies (Judges 16).
Centuries later, when a remnant of the Hebrews returned from their long captivity in Babylon, they repented of their fathers’ propensity to intermarry with foreigners: "The people of Israel and the priests and the Levites have not separated themselves from the peoples of the lands …, for they have taken some of their daughters as wives for themselves and their sons, so that the holy race is intermingled with the people of the lands" (Ezra 9:1, 2). This is an unmistakable condemnation of ethnic mixture.
Prophecy in both the Old and the New Testament gives strong evidence that God considers his division of mankind into various national or racial families not as an obstacle to be overcome but as an integral, praiseworthy, and permanent part of His creation. In some passages, prophecy points to the eternal significance of these distinctions. David prophesied that "all the ends of the earth will remember and turn to the Lord, and all the families of the nations will worship before Thee" (Psalm 22:27 NASB); and that "all the nations whom Thou hast made shall come and worship before Thee" (Psalm 86:9 NASB). James, the half-brother of Jesus, declared before the Jerusalem Church Council that the Father had revealed through the prophet Amos that He would send his Son (Jesus Christ) "so that the rest of mankind [anthropon] may seek the Lord, even all the nations [ethne] who are called by My name" (Acts 15: 17). Election does not destroy national identity.
The Book of Revelations provides clear evidence for the eternal destiny and indestructibility of the nations. In the New Jerusalem (Heaven), "the nations [ethne] shall walk by its light, … and they shall bring the glory and honor of the nations [ethnon] into it" (Rev. 21:24, 26). Furthermore, John revealed that the leaves of the Tree of Life in the midst of Paradise "were for the healing of the nations [ethnon]" (Rev. 22:2). These passages are impossible to understand without recourse to a doctrine of Christian ethnic nationalism.
Moreover, it is only recently that the churches of the West have claimed that ethnic and racial nationalism are in conflict with Christianity. The great Protestant reformer John Calvin affirmed the necessity and goodness of the national division of mankind: "Just as there are in a military camp separate lines for each platoon and section, men are placed on the earth so that each nation may be content with its own boundaries." In this manner, "God, by his providence reduces to order that which is confused" (Quoted in William J. Bouwsma, John Calvin: A Sixteenth Century Portrait; New York: Oxford University Press, 1988, p. 35).
Of the major Christian churches, only the Eastern Orthodox Church seems to have retained an understanding of the legitimate and necessary place of the nation in the life of the individual Christian. In a recent document, the bishops of the Russian Orthodox Church affirm both the universality and particularity of every Christian: "The universal nature of the Church, however, does not mean that Christians should have no right to national identity and national self-expressions." Rather, they urge Christians to develop "national Christian cultures."
Samson and Delilah, Rubens.
The bishops also challenge the leftist dogma that nationalism is acceptable only when it is based on non-ethnic factors: "Christian patriotism may be expressed at the same time with regard to a nation as an ethnic community and as a community of its citizens. The Orthodox Christian is called to love his fatherland, which has a territorial dimension, and his brothers by blood who live everywhere in the world." In addition, "the patriotism of the Orthodox Christian should be active. It is manifested when he defends his fatherland against an enemy, works for the good of the motherland, cares for the good order of [a] people’s life through, among other things, participation in the affairs of government. The Christian is called to preserve and develop national culture and people’s self-awareness" ("Bases of the Social Concept of the Russian Orthodox Church," Jubilee Bishops’ Council of the Russian Orthodox Church, 13-16 August 2000, pp. 4-7).
One cannot imagine the Catholic, Lutheran, Anglican, Methodist, Baptist, or Presbyterian churches issuing a document of such wisdom. It is no coincidence that the one prominent Christian writer who understands that nationalism and Christianity are not in conflict is an Eastern Orthodox Christian, Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn. Upon returning to his homeland in 1993, the Russian patriot explained why he had left a comfortable existence in the United States: "In Vermont I had wonderful conditions, better than anything Tolstoy ever had… . I could have stayed there peacefully and in great happiness. But it would have been running away from my duty not to have come back. I could not escape our people’s pain." His words stand as a rebuke to all Third-World Christians living in America who refuse to return to their homelands to build their own nations and help evangelize their own people.
For centuries Christians have had no difficulty accepting the important teaching of Scripture about the legitimacy of nations. That they now ignore this teaching or misinterpret it points to the poisonous infiltration of Enlightenment and socialist modes of thought. Socialism, whether of the Eastern Communist or Western Social Democratic variety, has been consistently hostile not only to Biblical Christianity but to the national division of mankind. The Russian Christian writer Vadim Borisov described socialism almost thirty years ago as "a well-thought out plan for the destruction of the Christian cosmos, a plan to turn mankind into an amorphous mass."
The fall of Communism ten years ago did not discredit socialism. The Social Democratic variant is stronger than ever, and continues its work of national destruction. Borisov warned that the socialist promise of happiness through liberation from the past and the imposition of equality was false, for "an impersonal, unstructured, formless existence is impossible."
The Apostle Paul warned believers to beware of "false prophets and deceitful workers," for "Satan himself transforms himself into an angel of light" (2 Corinthians 11:13, 14). The medieval theologian Thomas Aquinas warned Christians that Satan and his angels disguise themselves sub species boni (under the appearance of good). European Christians should be on their guard against socialists posing as Christians, for the socialistic dream of racial reconciliation and world unity leads to nothing less than the extinction of Europeans as a separate people and the destruction of their civilization. Christians must stand in defense against those who would — in the name of Christ — have us abandon our lands and our people.
Dr. H. A. Scott Trask is an American historian, a writer, a Protestant, and an Anglo-Celt.
One Blood, subtitled, The Biblical Answer to Racism, is written by Ken Ham, Carl Wieland and Don Batten, with a foreword by Zig Ziglar. Even if they are not familiar to AR readers, these names are well regarded in evangelical Christian circles. One Blood, published by Master Press, is considered "mainstream" Christian literature even by some conservatives.
They say you can’t judge a book by its cover, but in this case you can. The cover picture represents the three races of man, all grouped together in the same drop of what is presumably blood. Of course, despite having the word "race" in the subtitle and depicting races on the cover, the authors promptly assert that there is really no such thing as race. The differences we have been taught to think of as races are essentially just variations in skin color, which are nothing more than different concentrations of melanin. One Blood goes on to cite the very slight genetic differences between racial groups (they prefer the term "people groups"), but since the authors are creationists they do not mention that humans are very closely related to chimpanzees. One Blood even endorses the theory that human life originated in sub-Saharan Africa. This apparent conflict with creationism is nothing but an accommodation to the liberalism that has crept even into religious literature.
The crowning achievement of One Blood is its blatant endorsement of interracial marriage. On page 92 there is a chart illustrating who may marry whom, the point being that Christians should not marry non-Christians. The one illustration of an "unacceptable" marriage is a depiction of two whites, one of whom is Christian and the other "non-Christian." The two illustrations of "acceptable" marriages are both interracial. One is of a white man and an Asian woman (both "non-Christians" and therefore acceptable mates), and the third — the "ideal" marriage of two Christians — is that of a black man and a white woman.
The Bible’s "Great Commission," found in the final verses of Matthew and Mark, instructs believers to preach the Gospel to all nations — not to invite them to settle in your neighborhood and marry your daughter. There was a time in the not-too-distant past when white people understood this.
— Jerry Prater, Cross City, Fla.
(Posted on April 29, 2005)
With all due respect to AR, I think you guys underestimate how powerful the arguments advanced in this essay really are. They will resonate with conservative white Christians far more powerfully than recondite IQ studies ever will.
Posted by Cato at 6:20 PM on April 29
A very good post. Modern christianity is little more than world socialism dressed up in religious clothing. A real christian should be more concerned with the next world than with creating a socialist utopia (like Stalin’s) here on earth. More damage has been done by the well intentioned morons of the earth than has ever been done by conscious evil doers.
The US churches have become peopled with dysfunctional characters of marginal intellect who all majored in social work and/or administration.
Posted by Aristotle at 11:21 PM on April 29
I think the point of this article is wrong, and here is where the article really falls apart:
> The New Testament reaffirms the national and ethnic
> distinctions of the Old Testament, if anything, in
> stronger and clearer terms.
The passages cited point to an egalitarian interpretation rather than a particularist interpretation:
> Luke wrote that God “made from one [Adam] every nation
> [ethnos] of mankind [anthropon] to live on all the face
> of the earth, having determined their appointed times,
> and the boundaries of their habitation” (Acts 17:26).
> Christ himself commanded his disciples to go and “make
> disciples of all the nations [ethna]” (Matthew 28:19).
Thus the New Testament is clear that humans have one ancestral origin, and that all racial groups are worth trying to save.
True, it does not mean that human racial groups are genetically alike, but this is irrelevant. Spiritually, humans are all humans - this is not so in many other religions!
> Paul on numerous occasions, after he became a Christian,
> identified himself as belonging to the Jewish nation on
> the basis of birth and heritage — not merely a Jew but of a
> particular tribe. He was, he claimed, “of the nation of
> Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew of the Hebrews”
> (Philippians 3:5). When he wrote to the Romans in the city
> of Rome, he did not claim to be Roman (except by citizenship)
> but Jewish: “I too am an Israelite, a descendant of Abraham,
> of the tribe of Benjamin” (Romans 11:1). He referred to the
> Israelites as his “brethren, my kinsmen according to the
> flesh, who are Israelites” (Romans 9:3, 4). He also referred
> to the Roman Christians as his “brethren” (Romans 11:25), but
> he is clearly speaking in a spiritual sense.
1. Paul writes, “What advantage, then, is there in being a Jew, or what value is there in circumcision? Much in every way!” What value is there in being a Gentile?
2. This spiritual sense in which Paul speaks of Gentiles as being his brothers is very important. Even if it may allow for biological distinctions between groups, it nullifies the philosophical barriers which separate kin from non-kin. Consider especially this:
> Paul uses the Greek word laos (a people) to refer to both an
> ethnic people, as in the people of Israel, and a spiritual
> people, as in the people of God. Paul’s use of that word in
> both contexts proves that ethnicity is not rendered obsolete
> or illegitimate by coming to Christ.
It would seem that Christians are all one in Christ.
Even the Old Testament is not as racially particularistic as the writer insists. For example:
> The Bible endorses ethnic homogeneity as a positive good
> that contributes to peace, harmony, and happiness, whether
> it be in marriage, friendship, or society.
But the Bible also smiles on interethnic marriages as well; consider the famous story of Ruth the Moabitess, who is listed in as being one of Jesus’ direct ancestors!
> Modern theologians, Bible commentators, and pastors are
> quick to insist that God’s prohibition of such marriages
> was based on religion rather than race or ethnicity.
> Their shocking conclusion is that while white Christians
> are forbidden to marry non-Christian whites they are free
> to marry non-whites so long as they are Christians.
There is absolutely nothing shocking about this whatsoever; it is the natural consequence of bringing ethnic aliens into the religion. Again: “We are all brothers in Christ.”
> God does not condemn interethnic or interracial marriage
> per se, but He does lay down a principle that would forbid
> it as a common or widespread practice.
God sends His son through obviously mixed bloodlines; Tamar, Rahab, and Ruth are all given as ancestors of Jesus in Matthew, and all were gentiles.
> Liberal Christians repeatedly point out that God blessed
> certain interethnic marriages. The examples they cite are
> always between Israelites and members of other Semitic
> peoples who were their ethnic kin (descendants of Shem).
This is interesting, in light of this passage from Deuteronomy 20, which is worth quoting in full:
When you march up to attack a city, make its people an offer of peace. If they accept and open their gates, all the people in it shall be subject to forced labor and shall work for you. If they refuse to make peace and they engage you in battle, lay siege to that city. When the LORD your God delivers it into your hand, put to the sword all the men in it. As for the women, the children, the livestock and everything else in the city, you may take these as plunder for yourselves. And you may use the plunder the LORD your God gives you from your enemies. This is how you are to treat all the cities that are at a distance from you and do not belong to the nations nearby.
However, in the cities of the nations the LORD your God is giving you as an inheritance, do not leave alive anything that breathes. Completely destroy them — the Hittites, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites and Jebusites — as the LORD your God has commanded you. Otherwise, they will teach you to follow all the detestable things they do in worshiping their gods, and you will sin against the LORD your God.
It seems fairly clear here that:
1. The God of the Bible has no interest in preventing Jews from intermarrying with racially distant peoples, and in fact ordains that this is what they should do after crushing them militarily!
2. God only forbids them from intermarrying with their close neighbors, and this out of the harshly practical concern that His people not turn away from Him.
Trying to make a case for racial particularism of Christian Gentiles by using the Bible won’t work - the Bible doesn’t support such a case. Ever since the Great Commission, Christianity has been an inherently expansionistic and inclusionistic religion. It may not directly lead to the suicidal European immigration practices and bioegalitarian fantasies which dominate the Western world, but it is fully consistent with them.
The trouble with the Western world is obvious - Christianity is a rallying point for ethnic Europeans, but it also tears down philosophical barriers separating whites from ethnic competitors and leaves whites with no religious arguments for self defense. What is there for racially consdcious whites to do, abandon Christianity and turn to a white particularist religion, or try to work around an inherently inclusionistic religious tradiotion? Decisions, decisions!
Posted by Mark William Henshaw at 3:45 AM on April 30
“but since the authors are creationists they do not mention that humans are very closely related to chimpanzees…” Careful this already contains a conclusion. In fact there seems to be lots in common between chimps and humans. This is however NO proof for a ancestral relationship between the two species. Otherwise its a good post. And actually I think the BIBLE supports racialism
Posted by Hektor at 7:56 AM on April 30
Please, can we use something a little intellectually
substantial than “religion” to advance our racial and
cultural interests ? If I wanted to hear “God
is on our side ” I could go to the Aryan Nations web-site
or any of the other dozens of Christian Identity sites
that are scattered across the internet.
The differences among the races are obvious and are borne
out by numerous academic studies. These facts speak for
themselves and need no further buttressing by alledging
that they are supported by the diety of your choice.
Christianity, like most of the world’s religions, is extremely
fragmented and is divided over every doctrine imaginable. Concensus does not exist among God’s people. Just look up
“Churches” in the yellow pages and you will see the proof.
I believe the issue of our racial survival is far too important
to allow it fall within the vague realm of religious superstition. Useless squabling over “spiritual” interpretations is a waste of time and drains effort away from racial issues we face in the here and now.
I know that this post will most likely be answered by many
angry rebuttals. So be it.
Posted by Prozac Death Wish at 10:10 AM on April 30
“Fourth, the project for global unity sullies the beauty and diversity of God’s human creation, in that it suggests that the existence of different races, which vary markedly in physical appearance, is a mistake that man is to remedy by racial intermarriage. In this warped version of creation, God is the bungler and man the redeemer.”
This is a very thought provoking article and Dr. Trask is to be commended, for having refuted the sinful universalism, multiculturalism, and “socialism”(the combination of these three, being Communism in my book and thus the tool of Satan and nothing more) that is the mark of modern and so-called “Christianity.” The above paragraph alone however, is the most thought provoking of all. It resonates with one of my deepest religious beliefs, if God created us with our different appearances and abilities as races for his reasons, who are we to challenge our creator and violate and alter these differences through miscegenation. If God had wanted us to all to be as one with each other, in a giant coffee and cream brown blob, that is what he would have created in the first place. That is why I believe multiculturalism to be evil and sinful, a false religion of false prophets; in sum, a Temple of Babel built to serve the Marxist Multi Cult and its arrogant and sinful Communist Gurus!
This is why I never buckle under to the maudlin hypocritical and sanctimonious, “we are all God’s children” shame tactics of the Red race-mixing opposition, when they show up to have a go at us! We are right and they are wrong; if God created whites as a distinct and special people; why would he smile on our own willing self-destruction? Moreover, it is always interesting to observe that the Multi Cult crowd forget to note, in their absurd and often demonically crazed states of outraged
“tolerance,” that they forget to acknowledge whites as also being God’s children. No, in the perverted cesspools of their so-called minds, whites are sin itself; the white race by their way of “thinking” must be totally exterminated! Any who call for the genocide of a people, in particular their own, cannot be on the side of God and right! It is hopeful to note, that there is now a Pope in the Vatican, that seems agree with this position on multiculturalism: “He has criticized multiculturalism, ‘which is so constantly and passionately encouraged and supported,’ because it ‘sometimes amounts to an abandonment and disavowal of what is our own.’”(Pope Benedict XVI: Enemy of Jihad, Robert Spencer, FrontPageMagazine.com, 4, 20, 2005; posted on the AR website below, 4, 21,2005.)
Posted by John PM at 10:50 AM on April 30
What the churches are doing these extremely politically correct days, where where sickeningly enough every single nonwhite minority has to be held in the highest esteem, is to try to instill much guilt and shamefulness for white people who have married or are dating their own beautiful white people. That way they might not have many white children and the preachers can feel satisfaction that they have done their job of erasing us from the earth. It is a very evil scheme what these preachers are doing these days to instill guilt and my Lord Jesus Christ would not approve of this whatsoever, as Christ NEVER, EVER wanted white people to be dishonored this way through extinction.
Rather, Christ wanted all people to preach the word of God yet still have our distiction. He never once preached about marrying another race to make God happy. The Old Testament mentions quite clearly the disfavor God looks upon race mixing marriages and children. To bolster this argument in the New Testament Christ said he came to fulfill the Law. He never talked about abolishing it, like the preachers do today. In this regard the preachers of today are really hardly any different than the very dangerous atheistic Leftists here today.
I pray to God that our preachers will turn their ways and ask for forgiveness of their sins they preach.
Posted by Robert B. Weir at 1:59 PM on April 30
“Billy Graham’s position is similar to that of the former Republican congressman from Southern California, Robert Dornan, who said before a USA Today editorial board meeting: ‘I want to see America stay a nation of immigrants, and if we lose our Northern European stock — your coloring and mine, blue eyes and fair hair — tough! So what if 5,000 years from now we’re all going to have a golden tan… . We’re all going to be blended together because of travel, and because of the information highway.’”
Well. I don’t know about the “good” old Reverend Graham, but this caustic idiot Dornan got what was coming to him! His district, lost its white majority “coloring” in favor of a Hispanic immigrant “golden tan,” with predictable results, he lost his seat to a Mexican.
“The very next year, Hispanics voted in Loretta Sanchez, the 36-year-old daughter of immigrants, who kept telling voters how Mexican she was. This is precisely what Mr. Dornan’s cheerful view of immigration should have prepared him for, but did he concede defeat gracefully? No. He accused Miss Sanchez’s supporters of vote fraud, demanded recounts, and was a thoroughly bad sport about it all. Suddenly, racial altruism had a cost, and he screamed like a stuck pig.”(Competitive Altruism and White Self-Destruction, Dr. Ian Jobling, American Renaissance, Oct.-Nov. 2003; see AR News Archives for Friday, January 21 or the Back Issues.)
God works in mysterious ways at times, but if he was working here, I think his message was clear enough! I never fail to think of that quote from Dr. Jobling’s excellent article, when I see those brazenly foolish and treasonously “self-serving” Hispandering remarks by ex-Congressman Dornan. Oh well, “tough!” As they say Comrade Dornan, be careful about what you pray for…?
Posted by John PM at 3:34 PM on April 30
I was raised as a “Baptist”. Whatever that means, but the preacher at that time nearly drove me insane at the age of ten.
What I mean by that: He told us that we would most certainly go to hell. He screamed at us and told us we were sinners and should repent for our sins, day and night….
I couldn’t sleep at night, I waited day and night for the “end of the world” to come. They liked to talk about the end of the world. They even loved to sing songs about the end of the world and who would be saved and who would NOT be saved.
I was a basket-case. My parents said that some people just “need to get scared”. I couldn’t even enter a church without feeling nauseous for a very long time.
I have spent years trying to find answers. Even studying the bible with Jehovah’s Witnesses.
Do not misunderstand me, they are good people, but I just could never accept that we are all the same and will be judged according to how we treat each other as “brothers” and “sisters”.
I no longer consider myself a “Christian”. Now that I know that the Witnesses even learn Arabic in order to minister to Muslims, that’s it for me.
I would rather be a Pagan than accept Christianity.
Posted by kellye at 6:24 PM on April 30
To kellye, I couldn’t agree more with you. I am a former
fundamentalist Christian who is now an atheist ( BTW anyone who
tries to assert that a “real” Christian could never fall away
needs to go back to their Bible and reread Hebrews 6: vs 4-6 ).
Religion adds nothing of value to our fight for white nationalism. It breeds arrogance and the unwillingness
to listen. After all, if you believe that you already have Ultimate Truth why listen to anyone else ? This makes them
less able or willing to adapt their thinking to new theories and potential solutions. Valid avenues of attack regarding our racial self interest would be discarded because they lack proper biblical “perspective”. Any strategy that doesn’t agree
with their theology is evil and will be shunned.
We in the fight for White Nationalism do not need superstitious
voo-doo to lead the way. There will be no help from heaven, Jesus isn’t coming back, and a new German Pope will accomplish
I leave you with two quotes :
“Reason must be deluded, blinded, and destroyed. Faith must trample underfoot all reason, sense, and understanding, and whatever it sees must be put out of sight and know nothing but the word of God.” Martin Luther ( 1483-1546 )
“No man ever believes that the Bible means what it says; He
is always convinced that it says what he means.” George Bernard Shaw ( 1856-1950 )
Posted by Prozac Death Wish at 10:44 PM on April 30
Believers, Agnostics, and Atheists alike,
When discussing any profound issue of the day, it is prudent to ask, “What does God think?”
Yes, even if you are an atheist, this question is paramount. For if there is a God then what He thinks is all that matters. If there is not a God, then none of this matters.
Honestly, if there is nothing after this life on Earth, why even concern yourself with what happens here? If you are just going to turn to dust, why get worked up over who marries who, what race dominates or survives, etc.. Why not just live your life for yourself and be happy with what you have and with what you attain?
That said, I must tell you that I do have faith in God, so I believe what we do here on Earth does matter. So, where does that leave us? Or more to the point of today’s discussion, where does that leave us with race relations?
From the perspective of a Christian, I have found the question of race a perplexing one. “Man looks on outward appearances. God looks on the heart.” A verse, such as that one certainly seems to demand that we should not judge by appearances.
Another conundrum: since God created the races, why is it that he made them so markedly different in abilities (i.e. Blacks are faster but have a lower IQ)? Then there are the obvious and consistent differences in behavior and accomplishments, as has been well documented on this site. To attempt to ignore those differences in behavior and to fail plan accordingly can be a fatal mistake for the altruistic or unwary.
While I believe the most valuable time spent is in attempting to learn the mind of God and how He would have us live, for the purpose of this post I am going to approach this issue from the opposite direction. What is the mind of those who openly oppose God?
I am not necessarily referring to agnostics or atheists, but rather to the leftists and secularists of this country and in Europe. In my view, as a Christian, these people are opposed to God (and are therefore wrong) on issues such as abortion, homosexuality, feminism, and, of course, the place of God in our public and private lives. They are also incorrect in their stances on crime, justice and welfare.
Now we come to the issues of race and immigration. Can it be that these same people and organizations that are dead wrong on every other important issue that we face today are somehow correct in their views of race and immigration? As a friend of mine once said, “If you don’t know what position to take on an issue, just look at the position Ted Kennedy takes, take the opposite position and you’ll be right 98 percent of the time.” The same philosophy is probably a good one when applied to race, immigration, and liberals.
The liberals, who are wrong about everything else, vilify whites, want to flood the country with foreigners, and to promote anything interracial (think Sheridan on Monday Night Football and many other scenes on TV and on film). Perhaps they are right in trying to promote “diversity” et al, but they have been and are on the wrong side of most everything else. A gambler would be playing the long shot to bet on the liberal position on any issue.
What about a more personal side of race issues? For instance, is an “enlightened” liberal European, such as Heidi Klum “right” or should anyone even care when she chooses to follow the liberal lead and marry Seal? Maybe so, it is her life and her choice after all, but could she and her decision be just another product of the collapse of the traditional Christian moral values that propelled the West to its pinnacle in 19th and 20th centuries? Ms. Klum was already expecting their child before the marriage proposal. It is entirely possible that she is in the midst of a series of poor decisions and choices, which is understandable given the European moral compass these days.
The truth is, I still am not certain what to make of each of these issues. I know I do not like feeling like a foreigner in my own country, picking up the tab for the expense of immigration, being discriminated against by a system that hires and promotes based on race and sex rather than capability, and knowing that far too many places in our cities and suburbs are no longer safe. Perhaps none of those issues matter to God and therefore they should not matter to me, but if the liberals have been on the wrong side almost everything else, why should they be on the right side in these cases?
Posted by David at 11:39 PM on April 30
The White Race has probably existed for tens of thousands of years and Christianity has managed to drive us to the edge of extinction in only 2,000.
Either the Christian Religion goes exctinct or the White Race goes exctinct.
I do not think that BOTH can survive.
Posted by at 12:20 AM on May 1
Excellent post reconciling White Nationalism with Christianity. To ofter people are willing to give up on one or the other. I think that we can have both.
I woudn’t make a judgement on Christianity based on the Jehovah’s Witnesses. Some denominations don’t regard them as “Christian” at all. Over the years I encountered many, and I always noticed a stong multicultural bent from most of them. Although I once had a roomate who was a JW, and was as big a racist as anyone I knew.
I always tell people that they can find the most segregated places in America every Sunday morning.
At their local church.
Posted by Razor at 1:35 AM on May 1
To fellow Amren posters on the topic of Christianity, this is Prozac Death Wish. I must say that, being an atheist, I am shocked by the lack of vilification that I have received here. My former experiences posting on pro-Christian forums have frequently been met with venomous attacks and fiery condemnation. So far no one has “dropped a bomb” on me yet.
My previous postings were not meant to irritate White Nationalists who have a religious bent. I stand by my
statements regarding the usefulness of religion as it relates to the cause of White Nationalism, but freedom of religion is guaranteed by our Bill of Rights and I do consider myself a
My shooting buddy is a hard-core Christian Identity believer
who knows that I am an atheist. We get along fine ( which
is a good thing when we are both holding assault rifles. ) We sometimes discuss our differing viewpoints. We never soft-peddle our debates or water down our strongly felt opinions.
The strength of our friendship is what allows this unlikely
scenario to remain nothing more than a vigorous conversation. A
sense of good will is never lost between us, and if it becomes
too stressful we just change the subject.
Although I differ with those of you who adhere to a belief
in a spiritual realm, I would not stand in your way for the cause of White Nationalism.
Posted by Prozac Death Wish at 7:17 PM on May 1
Anyone who want an educated view of Christianity should read any book by Harry Emerson Fosdick, such as “A Guide to Understanding the Bible”, “The Modern Use of the Bible”, or “Dear Mr. Brown, Letters to a Person Perplexed About Religion.”
These books were written fifty years ago.
Educated clergy know that there is no archaeological evidence for the Exodus from Egypt, that David was probably mythological,
that there are several embellishments to the Gospel accounts, and that Old Testament prophecy was tortured to make it fit into the Gospel pattern of predicting events in the life of Christ.
Listen! Even C.S. Lewis believed that the creation account and the Flood was mythological and that Jonah and the Whale was a parable.
Posted by The Emphatic Polyglot at 8:00 PM on May 1
“Either the Christian religion goes extinct or the white race goes extinct.”
Christians might reword that: If the Christian religion goes extinct (which it won’t), then the white race may go extinct.
Many of the greatest achievements of our race have occurred during the centuries when white nations were Christian. It could be argued that the problems and decline of our people have coincided with the decline in Christianity in the West. That would certainly fit a Biblical pattern. “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. That sounds just like the good old USA in the 21st century. That’s what happens to nations that reject God. We have rejected Him as a culture. Everything is falling apart. Yet many blame God, or at least Christianity. The liberal church may be at fault in all this but they have rejected the God of the Bible, too. Please don’t confuse God and Christ with that organization.
Christianity is not a cause, a creed, or a code, as one pastor put it. It is a relationship with a person, Jesus Christ. Many of our ancestors put their faith in that person. They would have known what to do in a situation such as ours. They would have prayed and done some self-examination and probably a lot of repenting. They would have expected the same kind of deliverance Jehosaphat, Gideon, and numerous others did. There is nothing in Christianity that mandates national and racial suicide.
Please study Pascal’s Wager. Also, read “The Creator and the Cosmos” by Dr. Hugh Ross,an astrophysicist. Another excellent read for genuine truth-seekers is “The Case for Faith” by Lee Strobel. If there is any chance at all that Christianity is true, then everyone owes it to himself to at least consider it. If Christ is real and I firmly believe he is, the only personal decision that ultimately matters is accepting or rejecting him. SY
Posted by at 8:32 PM on May 1
To Razor, regarding:
“Excellent post reconciling White Nationalism with Christianity. To often people are willing to give up on one or the other. I think that we can have both.”
Just wanted to say thanks, for your kind and supportive words regarding my above post. I agree with you wholeheartedly, White Nationalism and Christianity or for that matter any other religion (e.g., a White Nationalist Jew or even a White Nationalist Buddhist, as rare as that might be) are not incompatible. Unlike what Prozac Death Wish, contends with his discourteous and indirect cracks about “voo-doo” and “a new German Pope” accomplishing nothing, I ask the question, if we are without God are we not just as bad as the turgidly holier-than-thou Communist Multi Cult opposition? Why should God help our cause, if we have given up on him, or worse deny he ever existed in the first place? Is this not just as bad as promoting unnatural social arrangements in his name, while your ultimate goal is removing him from public or political considerations altogether, as is the objective of these Marxist multicultural fanatics? As I noted in my above post, God separated the races and made them different for his reasons; man ignores this at his own peril, as this thoughtful article by Dr. Trask points out. As a Catholic, I was ad infinitum instructed to believe that he planned for our lives to be a mystery. Thus, my ability to have faith in God without certainty of his overall plan or intentions. I am not childishly blinded by this faith, to the point that I can not grasp the reality of our situation; however, I am not foolish enough to think that God will not abandon the white race, if we abandon both him and ourselves too!
I do not hold that I have all the answers. I do not hold that I can prove that God exists, but I do honestly believe that he does! I have always been perplexed by those who do not believe in God; just as I will never understand, a Christian who is threatened by the possibility that extraterrestrial life might exist elsewhere in the universe? We live on one small planet, in one small solar system, in an average sized galaxy, in a vast and largely unknown universe. However, in this universe there is an obvious order and design, which I believe indicates a creator who we call God. When he decides to spell everything out for us directly, he will. Until that day, we can only thank him for the gifts he has given us (for example, our own personal racial consciousness and survival instincts, in an age where this is so rare) and work with them!
Best wishes to you Razor and thanks again,
Posted by John PM at 9:23 PM on May 1
To those of you who wish to alienate Christian beliefs and believers while forwarding your racial awareness:
There is a strong chance your efforts will be doomed to failure. If it is a prerequisite to be pagan in order to love one’s self enough to want to marry someone similar and to raise similar children and if it is a prerequisite to be a pagan to pursue and demand equal treatment under the law, then this movement most likely will not succeed.
Also, take note that the largest white families are generally Christian families. Christians value family and children much more than their secular humanist counterparts. If the Christians in America are not with you, then this movement will always be a small minority movement without sufficient power to enact change.
Posted by David at 9:36 PM on May 1
Christianity since its inception, has had the injunction
to evangelize the world. So it doesn’t matter what the Old Test-
ament says-this is what Christianity is about. So a strong ines-
capable Universalitst Ethic is built into Christianity. Anything
else is a temporary exception or anomaly. Christian Europe stayed
White in the past in spite of Christianity not because of it.
That Pope Benedict doesn’t want Muslims in Europe doesn’t mean
He is against interacial marriage. I admire what the Seedline
Christians are trying to do, but I just don’t think the rationale
is there to back it either scripturally or intellectually. I
love Christianity, but let’s keep it at the level of the Soul.
Here on Earth let us render unto Cesear what is Ceasear’s. Let’s
convert them but not breed with them. That’ll go over like a lead
balloon; it’s a compromise, but I haven’t seen anythig better.
That is the way we used to do it after all.
Posted by Lugh at 9:40 PM on May 1
Your post was excellent and thought provoking as well.
I particularly liked your opening point:
“Honestly, if there is nothing after this life on Earth, why even concern yourself with what happens here? If you are just going to turn to dust, why get worked up over who marries who, what race dominates or survives, etc.. Why not just live your life for yourself and be happy with what you have and with what you attain?”
In short, the only concern that would matter, would be if you were far sited enough to be concerned about your children and grandchildren. Other than that nothing and you could avoid this concern, simply by having no children at all. I am not advocating this, but only stating an obvious and logical point.
In regards to religion, I keep an open mind. As I noted to Razor above, I know that I don’t have all the answers; however, I always have a lot of questions. One concept that I have never discounted totally (despite a Catholic upbringing and my overall Christian beliefs) is the possibility that reincarnation might play a role in the whole grand scheme of things. This does not mean that I hold that we come back as dogs or that I was once Alexander the Great, only that this concept is not out of the question, in my book. In all honesty, if the concept has any validity and most of the more thoughtful and reputable advocates of this belief are to be understood, we come back into our family lines.
Just to be a bit thought provoking myself on this topic, if this is the case Ms. Klum sure is getting the raw end of the deal with being impregnated by Mr. Seal, is she not? This would also put a whole new spin on your point: “It is entirely possible that she is in the midst of a series of poor decisions and choices, which is understandable given the European moral compass these days.”
Again I stress, I wrote this to be thought provoking and to a point humorous! Not to advocate that reincarnation is anything other than a possible (if unlikely) answer to the afterlife and what happens there?
Best wishes to you David and All,
Posted by John PM at 10:12 PM on May 1
I know I shouldn’t judge.
The Baptists scared me to death at a young age though and the Jehovah’s Witnesses were pushier than any insurance agent or telemarketer.
The Witnesses start out wanting to come once a week and then they want you to start attending meetings 2-4 times a week.
I found myself always having to make excuses and apologies for not attending.
What really was the last straw though, was I was ill and called to cancel our scheduled bible study.
I had had an operation and was on medication and needed to get some sleep. I explained this, but she had some circuit overseer with her that day and would not take “No” for an answer.
She called 6 times on the phone and I finally had to tell her “Please, I can’t today, really.”
She said “Oh, maybe after you’ve slept, you’ll feel better”.
They came to door and rang the doorbell 7 times from downstairs and 3 times upstairs.
I locked myself in the bathroom, because I really thought that she would find a way to miraculously come through my front door!
I have made myself unavailable since.
Posted by kellye at 4:37 AM on May 2
Even within some Christian churches in recent years there has fortunately been disagreement and even outright dissention on this fashionable mandate pushing mixed marriage.
When I lived in Ohio about three years ago the main Columbus paper had articles about several local pastors refusing to perform wedding ceremonies for interracial couples. The articles appeared over several years and involved different White clergymen, who when interviewed stated in no uncertain terms that mixed marriages were against Christian teachings. Their refusal to perform the multi-racial nuptuals garnered the usual cries of “haters” and “white supremacists” from the resident pro-mixing leftists and minorities. I guess Jesse Jackson must have been busy, since somehow he did not show up in town to bolster the pro-miscegenation agenda through protest marches and candlelight vigils.
I am glad at least a few White pastors had the guts to take a stand and go public with it.
Posted by Just Say No To Mixing at 10:29 AM on May 2
The Apostle Paul made it quite clear that Christians can marry non-Christians.
Posted by Kyle Rogers at 12:15 PM on May 2
From David’s post above:
“If you are just going to turn to dust why get worked up over who marries who, what race dominates or survives etc.? Why not just live your life for yourself and be happy with what you have and with what you attain?”
Because even when keeping religion out of the question we here who are concerned residents of rapidly disappearing white communities take the long view as to the ramifications racial survival has for our children and grandchildren. There is an increasingly outdated notion held by whites that we want our children to live better than ourselves, for children to do better than their parents.(Not only economically, but in the more intangible terms of “quality of life”). My children will be among the first generation of adults who as white citizens in a formerly white country won’t enjoy the quality life that I as an adult white or my parents had. This would not have to happen if we could avoid losing our sense of connectedness as a race and subverting our natural tendency to marry among our own.
Before our countries were being run by multi-culti brainwashing leftists, generations of whites looked toward the future as they built their countries and moved us forward into modern times. These builders had in mind making a contribution to bring about the societal conditions that would benefit their white descendents. That’s why the Constitution was written as it was originally and until 1965 immigration policies were geared toward encouraging white settlement and keeping out non-whites. Our ancestors that devised these policies were thinking of our future well-being.
The problem is that these principles have been contorted to favor non-whites over ourselves, definitely not in keeping with what our ancestors had in mind when erecting our great white nations. Lucky for us they did not concern themselves with immediate gratification (like David suggests they should have), instead they sought to insure our survival. They did not intend for white nations to become some sort of free-for-all for blacks, yellows and browns! They wanted to ensure excellent societal conditions for their extended family, their fellow whites.
We whites need to take our cue from our thoughtful ancestors now to ensure a bright future for our white descendents. They deserve to inherit the nations that their white ancestors built for them. The only way our white children can do this is to take pride in their white identity, build communities with whites and keep their white lineages going. It is for our children’s sake that today’s whites need to act now and not just “live for today” like David advocates!
Posted by Georgia Mom at 2:43 PM on May 2
If God is the creator of all things, including the different
races,then how utterly foolish to worship him. How paradoxical
that people who define themselves as racists ( or “racialists” if you prefer ) admire the very being that has willfully created their racial adversaries.
A being that is supposedly perfect in every respect could surely create something more sensible than this. Think about it; a God whose intellect is without limitations of any kind, and this is the best he can do ? I could never bring myself to get down on my knees and grovel before a God whose most defining quality is incompetence.
Posted by Arminius at 10:23 PM on May 2
“If it is a prerequisite to be pagan in order to love one’s self enough to want to marry someone similar and to raise similar children and if it is a prerequisite to be a pagan to pursue and demand equal treatment under the law, then this movement most likely will not succeed.”
The Christians THEMSELVES have already made these prerequisites.
Look again at this review of ONE BLOOD:
“The crowning achievement of One Blood is its blatant endorsement of interracial marriage. On page 92 there is a chart illustrating who may marry whom, the point being that Christians should not marry non-Christians. The one illustration of an “unacceptable” marriage is a depiction of two whites, one of whom is Christian and the other “non-Christian.” The two illustrations of “acceptable” marriages are both interracial. One is of a white man and an Asian woman (both “non-Christians” and therefore acceptable mates), and the third — the “ideal” marriage of two Christians — is that of a black man and a white woman.”
Posted by at 1:17 AM on May 3
Dr. Trask is to be commended for his fine, thoughtful and circumspect article on the racialistic implications of the Bible. On all essential points he appears to be correct, and his words have easily withstood, for example, the criticisms of earlier posts.
Christianity has indeed fallen onto hard times. Satan, with a great deal of human aid, has used egalitarian Liberalism and Marxism to subvert traditional, Biblically-based Christianity.
That much is very clear.
If white nationalism and the white race are to survive and flourish, we as white nationalists must do our theological and historical homework, and then take back the Christian churches.
Theological truths are by definition fundamental truths about the nature of God, the nature of His creation, and the nature of the relationship between these two, God and creation. On the other hand, the truths of racialism are fundamental, critically important but neglected and concealed truths about the Divinely-made salient, differentiating differences that exist among the various races of man, Negroid, Caucasiod, Mongoloid.
Men cannot governed themselves well when they refuse to base their governments on an honest view of the various differences that exist between individual men, and that exist between the various races of man. Racialism is important because it highlights neglected and suppressed truths whose neglect and suppression are a main cause of our disintegrating families, societies, and civilization. I would add that the neglect and suppression of racialistic truths in our world today is one of the main causes of eternal souls being alienated from God and lost forever. This last point should rouse us to action if nothing else does. (I have two young sons, so I feel this concern most keenly.) The modern bastardized American society is becoming, more and more, a moral cesspool and spiritual wasteland. A sickening and unholy spectacle, to say the least!
The science of politics, properly understood, is concerned with wise legislation that trains men in proper ways of living. Politics then, when seen in its true and proper Providential light, is a holy science, an extension of theology, concerned with producing virtuous characters and souls in this earthly life. Because we have allowed politics to become increasingly corrupted via Satanic influences, more and more souls are being lost every day. At the very center of this Satanic influence is the egalitarian denial of the racialistic truths of God’s wondrous, varied, and differentiated Creation.
Traditional, Bible-based Christianity is not just one belief system among many: it is the TRUTH about us, the world we live in, and the Almighty Goodness that made it. Racialism, understood as the honest and forthright acknowledgement of socially, politically and spiritually significant differences between the various races of man, is an essential and ultimately irrepressible part of God’s creation.
White nationalism, to succeed, must march under the banner of a truly reformed Christianity. It’s time for a racialistic REFORMATION or rediscovery of the one true Christian faith.
It’s time for a White America Party with a rock-solid racialistically-reformed and theologically-restored Christian foundation. It’s time to win back the hearts and minds of enough white Americans to gain political power, and to set about restoring and transforming America. It’s time for an American Renaissance; it’s time for a social, political, governmental, cultural, and spiritual rebirth of our nation. Let’s do it, my friends.
Dr. Winston McCuen
West Columbia, SC
Posted by Dr. Winston McCuen at 7:29 AM on May 3
Do you really think I am an advocate of just live for the day?
Perhaps you should reread what I wrote. Don’t see it as you wish it to be but as it is written.
Posted by David at 9:40 AM on May 3
In digging up passages from Scripture that point to national divisions, Mr. Trask forgets the commandments God sets down in dealing with people from other nations. For instance, God says that “You shall also love the stranger, for you were strangers in the land of Egypt” (Deut. 10.19; New Revised Standard Version). Somehow the lovin’ vibe is absence from AR. Further, aliens resident in the land of Israel (Christendom, if we want to make the extension) are to be considered citizens: “The alien who resides with you shall be to you as the citizen among you; you shall love the alien as yourself, for you were aliens in the land of Egypt: I am the LORD your God” (Lev. 19.34).
The LORD God also advocates social programs for immigrants: “When you have finished paying all the tithe of your produce in the third year […], giving it to the Levites, the aliens, the orphans, and the widows…” (Deut. 26.12). “Your” tax money that is going to the poor is not your money at all, but gifts from a graceful God. Also read the preceding two or three chapters. You cannot say that “alien” refers to other people from the same “race.” Deut. 26.5 Equates Israelites as “aliens” living in the land of Egypt – and for all of Mr. Trask’s hermeneutic hopscotch around Ruth, he does differentiate between Hamites and Semites in his discussion of Hagar.
Foreigners are also to have their due in government. 2 Samuel speaks of two alien messengers to King David: an Amalekite (1.13) does not fare too well, but his punishment would have been no different had he been an Israelite. More interesting is the Cushite (Ethiopian, that is, black) who serves David better than Israelites by telling the truth (18.21-32).
It seems then, that the evils of white supremacy also include heresy.
P.S. With regards to Mark William Henshaw’s post way up there, other religions do have a sense of human equality (not always realized, of course): that is why pilgrims to Mecca all wear the same clothing. Indeed, for all of Judaism’s supposed nationalism and exclusivism, we do not get this kind of political account for the improvement of aliens in the New Testament.
Posted by White Canadian at 11:56 AM on May 5
OK, White Canadian, by your own hermeneutic “reasoning”, the Isrealites should have welcomed the Philistines with open arms.
As to your segue into modern America, ILLEGAL immigrants are indeed Philistines in every way.
The Hebrew people were by no means illegal immigrants into Egypt. Try reading the story of Joseph in Genesis, especially the ending, when Jacob and his sons move into Egypt.
Obviously, the passages you refer to above are speaking of non invasive aliens (visitors or temporary sojourners, as the Isrealites once were), not invading, conquering hordes.
Indeed, to segue to modern Israel, that “Jewish State” rightly struggles to stay just that, a Jewish state. Thus, Jew haters hurl such lying abuse as “Zionism is racism” and equate Jewish nationalism with Naziism. By your standard, modern Israel should throw open its doors to the Arab hordes and just blend out of existence. Not all conquering hordes need use the sword.
In the Bible, once Israel has grown too large, God removes them from Egypt. He would have done so whether or not the Egyptians had remained friendly and kind to the Hebrews. God had prepared a land of their own for the Hebrews.
In the taking of that land, the nations who occupy it are dispossed, not by the power of man (the Hebrews), but by the power of God acting through Israel.
Thus, in the Scripture, God continues to set the bounderies of individual nations and peoples, as when he divided them earlier in Genesis. This is a plain and unembelished exegesis of the Old Testament on this subject.
Of course, all laws of love toward neighbor in all the Bible apply today and a Christian America has welcomed, and made equals of more LEGAL immigrants than any nation, ever.
That is not the point. The point is the legitimacy of national and racial survival. If a black African Christian nation and people were, in the Twilight Zone, turning away white legal applicants and illegal invaders out of concerns about becoming a disposessed minority in their own land, would you call those black African Christians, and their nation, “evil”?
OK, let’s examine your charge that, “It seems then, that the evils of white supremacy also include heresy”. Though some commentors on this comment board display a wretched and evil attitude toward non-whites (as in Mark William Henshaw’s horrified words, in which he is shocked…shocked !, that “the New Testament is clear that humans have one ancestral origin, and that all racial groups are worth trying to save” whose exegeticaly silly and morally vile postings you rightly, if gently, rebuke, “other religions do have a sense of human equality”), THIS IS NOT a white supremacist magazine or web site. That is a calumny that displays either sinfully irresponsible ignorance or deliberatly cunning mandacity.
So also to the charge of heresy. As a great Christian pastor taught me long ago, only fools or ignoramuses throw the heresy word around lightly. You have proven exactly zero heresy in Dr. Trask’s article, as I have demonstrated above. Your false charge, however, is an example of denunciation under the modern day Inquisition of the Regime of Political Correctness.
While AR is by no means a Christian publication, and has sadly displayed serious, far too much, and unbalanced skepticism toward Christians and Christianity (much less so toward Jews and Judaism, thankfully), DR. Trask’s article provided a sufficient enough tip-of-the-hat to Christians, and especially to an Evangelical Biblicist like me (who happens, like Dr. Trask, to accept racial reality), to motivate me originally to subscribe. I look each month for another such article or biblical perspective on race. None have, sadly, appeared so far.
Nonetheless, I eat the meat and spit out the bones with regard to AR. It is not perfect. Neither is it evil.
However, neither are races alike. Race is real. Serious and very significant racial differences are real. The division of man by nation and race is real, call it by God or by micro evolution. It is not “evil” to call reality, reality.
Posted by DTF at 9:00 PM on May 5
I would also like to say that an evangelical does not accept the Bible as inerrant; he accepts the MESSAGE of the Bible (particularly the New Testament) as inerrant, inspired by the Holy Spirit, and absolutely vital to mankind today.
Although we have come too far to make any return to fundamentalism by any intelligent person impossible, I think that it is in a relationship to Christ that a person finds his true self — personal as well as racial.
Posted by The Emphatic Polyglot at 9:51 PM on May 5
I meant to say that we have come too far to make any return to fundamentalism POSSIBLE (not impossible). What I meant was that educated persons know that myth has an important place in the Bible. But myth does NOT mean “something untrue.” Rather, it is truth expressed in poetic language. No rational person would believe that a knowledge of good and evil is gained by eating a fruit, or that immortality is gained by eating another fruit (see Genesis, chapters 1 & 2). The very language is mythologic and poetic. Ditto for Jonah and the whale.
Posted by The Emphatic Polyglot at 9:15 PM on May 7