Category Archives: Race & Reason

A Dozen Quick Arguments Against Interracial Marriage

Race is a blood relationship that can be succinctly and Biblically defined as a group of people sharing common descent from a particular man. As such, it is a pattern that repeats at any scale. In the broadest sense, there is one race, the race of Adam. In the narrowest sense, my son is of the race of me. In truth, the Bible doesn’t deal too much with races, but predominantly uses the broader concept of nations. A nation is a group of people sharing a common race, religion, location, and history. Simply put, the people of a nation share a common identity that forms the basis of a shared understanding. read more

PCA Prepares to Anathematize the Sin of Noticing at 44th GA

The many social justice warriors in leadership positions with the Presbyterian Church in America are working furiously to prepare new and exciting overtures for the 44th General Assembly, upcoming in June. The PCA is hopeful that these new resolutions will atone for the many sins of the old Southern Presbyterians while helping the burgeoning denomination to win social acceptance and the approval of popularly recognized authority figures. Top on the list of new proposals: a formal anathematization of the sin of noticing. The proposal’s co-author, Dr. Sean Lucas, explained, “While the contemptible baseness of noticing is evident to any Christian with a social conscience, we in the PCA want to be at the forefront of formally denouncing this great evil. Too long, we in the faith community have tolerated noticing when we should have been the first to condemn it. As Dr. Tim Keller taught us in Deconstructing Defeater Beliefs, an integral part of Gospel Neighboring is increasing Gospel Attractiveness by connecting the Gospel with baseline cultural narratives, and thereby diminishing Gospel Exclusiveness. We want to make our cities great places for everyone. Nothing I can think of would more broadly increase the appeal of the Gospel to our postmodern society than condemning the sin of noticing.” read more

Is Segregation Scriptural?

Nathanael Strickland of Faith & Heritage interacts with a 1960 sermon from Bob Jones:

Kinism is often accused of being a new invention by our multiracialist Alienist opponents. Our response is that, while the name may be new, our beliefs are the same as historical Christianity; we are forced to take on a new name for ourselves due to the Marxist hijacking of modern Christianity. While they may sit in control of the denominations and speak for what passes as Christianity at present, it is their views which are the new invention. We are the true heirs of the Christian tradition, and our views are the ones holding continuity with the past. The first part of this proof is offered by the Alienists themselves. That they must so thoroughly condemn and apologize for their forefathers betrays their discontinuity. This alone should be enough, but as further and more concrete proof, I offer the following sermon by Bob Jones Sr. from 1960, entitled “Is Segregation Scriptural?” In 1960, Protestantism was the predominant religion in the South, and Bob Jones Sr. was one of the most prominent figures in the Protestant South. Bob Jones Sr. was the founder and first president of Bob Jones University in Greenville, South Carolina, which, along with Pensacola Christian College in Florida, was and still is one of the most influential fundamentalist Christian institutions in the region and even the country. His disagreements with Billy Graham were a large contributing factor to the split between fundamentalists and evangelicals in 1957. He helped pioneer the practice of giving sermons on the radio, which in fact is how this particular sermon was given. Thus it is reasonable to say that his views in this sermon are definitely representative of the views of white, conservative Christians in the South at the time, and probably even some of the more moderate Southern Christians and white, conservative Christians in the North. read more

The Marxist View of Man as a Generic Being

From Gonzalo Fernandez de la Mora’s Egalitarian Envy: The Political Foundations of Social Justice:

Marxist egalitarianism is not only political and economic (“to each one according to his needs”) it is anthropological. The subject of the communist society is not the individual, but generic man. This is the famous text: “When the real, individual man will retake possession of the abstract citizen, when in his empirical life, in his individual work, and in his individual relations he becomes transformed into generic being; when man recognizes his own strength as the strength of society…only then will he attain human emancipation.” This is, therefore, almost a metaphysical egalitarianism, where man becomes a species, a universal concept, and acquires that property which belongs to the beings of reason, absolute equality. This thesis carries with it another subordinate egalitarianism: labor. This is a theory of work that claims to be a “means, homogeneous and abstract.” For Marx the worth of merchandise depends on the amount of necessary work required to produce it; not any one particular form of work, but only the abstract, standard work of a worker as a mean: “with a degree of ability and intensity within determined social conditions.” Work, as it becomes something statistical and anonymous, may be perfectly divided into equal parts. This is the suppression of all laboral differences. “The total laboral strength of a society, observable in the total value of all the merchandises, though embracing innumerable individual unities of work, amounts to as much as an undifferentiated mass of human work; each of these individual units is equal to the rest.” This type of “abstract” work corresponds to the “generic” man. In this manner, workers as much as their efforts are interchangeable and equal among themselves. In its ﬁnal phase, communist society would provide total equality to all subjects – generic man – and the total equality of the patrimony: everything according to the quota or collective (capital, power, work, and income). Marxist egalitarianism, despite its protestations of materialism and empiricism, is the most speculative and metaphysical of all: generic man and abstract work are two over-reﬁned abstractions of reason. read more

What is Kinism?

Kinism is the belief:

That a basic harmony exists between the mind and the body, the spirit and the flesh.

That conversion often happens, but that the ordinary means by which the Church militant extends itself is through covenantal succession from Christian parents to covenant children.

That men are not born blank slates, but inherit physical and mental characteristics, predilections, weaknesses, and strengths from their biological parents. That neither nature nor nurture is deterministic of behavior, but that both are highly influential.

That race is Biblically defined as common patrilineal descent. That, in consequence, race is the sum total of all the attributes a man inherits from his ancestors that he holds in common with his relatives, both near and distant.

That culture is the external expression of religious belief in union with race and place.

That the ideal Christian social order is an extension of the family concept, considered at a larger scale. That Biblically, a nation is a large group of people of common patrilineal descent, living in a common geographical location, and having a shared religion, history, language, and civil government (a religio-ethnostate).

That sin is a universal deformity in human nature, and that no perfect society is possible this side of Heaven. That Christians should work to limit human error by seeking those conditions which are inherently productive of a harmony of interests, both in marriage and in society at large. That a harmony of interests naturally exists between people who are similar.

That the God of the Old Testament, who forbade interracial, interreligious marriages to His covenant nation, is the same as the God of the New Testament. That marriage between parties who are not naturally congenial is unequal yoking. That unequal yoking in marriage or in society at large is destructive of Christian harmony, association, and growth.

That those who are not Christian in outlook reject the transcendent unity of creation in God our Creator, and in its place seek to substitute an immanent unity that ultimately destroys all distinctions.

That those seeking a New World Order find the boundless diversity in God’s creation an intolerable hindrance to earthly unity. That they seek a one-world government, a one-world religion, and a one-world man. That multiculturalism, miscegenation, and transracial adoption are all means to their ends.

That Cultural Marxists seek a revolutionary regeneration of society by destroying all the institutions of Christendom. That multiculturalism and politically correct newspeak, as well as their control of the news media, entertainment, and education, are all a means to that end. That all of Christendom’s history is continually subjected to critical assessment designed to undermine it.

That under the Abrahamic Covenant, God’s covenant nation consisted principally of a subset of Abraham’s physical descendants. That in the New Covenant era, the elect come from all nations. That, nevertheless, God graciously made Europe the historic seat of Christendom. That because of this, the white Christian male is especially under attack by the forces of the New World Order.

That atomistic individualism and centralized totalitarianism are not in tension, but are necessary corollaries. That the rise of rationalism has led to the simultaneous rise of an impersonal and rootless man and a unitary, technocratic state. That man inherently desires association and a sense of belonging, and that, in the absence of human-scale associations, will substitute the sense of belonging offered by the total state. That the cure for collectivism is not individualism, but rather to increase human-scale associations, principally in the primal community of the family, but also in multitudinous local social institutions, such as the church, civic organizations, and trade associations.

That multiculturalism is destructive of community and leads to isolation, alienation or loss of identity, and a prevailing sense of loneliness. That a man who no longer identifies with his community will not expend his labor or capital in its maintenance, improvement, or in service of its future existence.

That the forces of the New World Order have a vested interest in destroying community, as a means of atomizing man so that he willingly embraces the total state.

That all men are equal only in the sense that we have a common origin and federal head in Adam. That we are equal before God’s Law in the sense that it applies to all men; recognizing that in points it applies unequal treatment to the sexes, to believers than to unbelievers, to the native than to the alien. That men are unequal in almost every other way, whether it be in talents, intelligence, character, strength, appearance, etc. That these inequalities are inherent in man, and not the result of differences in their environment or upbringing. That Christians, the native born, and property owners, have a greater claim to wielding power, whether that be holding a position of leadership, voting, land ownership, or freedom of movement. That hierarchy is the natural and proper structure of human society.

That inequality has developed both along individual and racial lines, and that every race has its areas of superiority. That we should not be ashamed of those gifts God saw fit to bestow upon us, but enjoy them.

That envy is a desire for equality taking the form of hatred of the superior. That the envious man begrudges others of their advantages, and rather than seeking to acquire those advantages for himself, instead seeks to destroy them so that all will be equal in their poverty of advantages. That envy motivates many minorities, and that separation is the only effective way to deal with it.

That man, as a creature, is necessarily limited. That because he is limited, his responsibility to others is also limited. That human responsibility is Biblically regulated by relationship, such that we have a greater responsibility to our own family, race, town, state, region, and country, than we do to “the other”. That Christians should favor the native and the normal over the alien and the novel.

That placing burdens on people they cannot bear inevitably induces guilt. That a guilty man is an easily controlled man. That a man with impossible burdens will seek a more powerful entity to bear those burdens for him. That the most powerful earthly entity is the state. That the agents of the New World Order have a vested interest in inducing guilt as a means of control.

That atonement is an inescapable category for man. That if the true atonement of Christ is rejected, a substitute atonement will be sought elsewhere. That masochistic activity is often a false substitute means of self-atonement. That burden-bearing is one such masochistic activity. That transracial adoption is one common form of burden-bearing in the post-Christian church. That sacrificing one’s family to become a foreign missionary is another common form.

That adoption should be a rare event, and that orphans should always be cared for by the relationally-nearest family member willing to do so. That if no natural family is willing to care for the orphan, only then may a foster family be sought. That a foster family should only care for another’s child as a means of making the best of a bad situation, after the woman is beyond her child-bearing years and all natural children have left the home. That transracial or international adoptions should not occur.

That besides treating all men in accordance to God’s Law, our only universal responsibility to others is to share the Gospel with them. That this responsibility is not borne by every individual, but collectively by the Church. That the social gospel is not the Gospel, and that relief efforts, as well as educational and medical missions, are often destructive of the spread of Christianity to foreign cultures. That our responsibility consists only of sharing the Good News of Jesus Christ. That the most effective missionaries are native missionaries, and that foreign missionaries should only be considered if no natives are available. That a foreign missionary should be single, or married but childless.

That dispossession, barrenness, population decline, wealth transfer, mental blindness, and widespread self-destructive behavior are clear external signs of God’s judgment. That the proper response to this is not to bare our necks to His chosen instruments of castigation, but to reassert the crown rights of King Jesus, and our lawful claims under His kingship.

Blast from the Past: Integration Communist Inspired

The following is an extract from a letter by Dr. D. M. Nelson, President of Mississippi College, a Christian university located in Clinton, Mississippi. It was republished in the October 1955 edition of The Citizen’s Council.

The big word today…which is Communist inspired, is not evolution, but “integration”. As the evolutionist would unify life by reducing it to a common origin, the cell, so the integrationist would break down all racial barriers and merge all classes and nationalities and races into one huge mass of humanity. This is what the Communists have been attempting to do for almost half a century. Integration is the big word in their vocabulary. And whereas the weight of Christian thought and action was directed against the acceptance of the theory of organic evolution, much of it is being used today to accelerate the coming of a classless society and a raceless world. Such a position finds as little support in the Scripture as the theory of evolution. And in nature, the handiwork of God, variety and difference and distinction are found everywhere. No two flowers on the same bush are alike. No two leaves on the same tree are identical. Finger printing is possible because the palm of every hand is different. The sensitive feelings of some people are hurt when the terms inferiority and superiority are used in speaking of different races, but the fact remains that races are different, radically different, and man is not responsible for this difference, but God. And for a people not to recognize and respect these racial characteristics and dissimilarities, but attempt to merge them in the crucible of miscegenation, expecting therefrom an improved race, is the height of blasphemy. read more

Alienist Canards & Bromides: Neither Jew Nor Greek

“²⁶For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus. ²⁷For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ. ²⁸There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.” ~ Galatians 3:26-28

Christian Alienists commonly cite Galatians 3:28 as evidence that racial distinctions either no longer exist in the Christian era, or that they do not matter within the context of Christendom. But is this what the verse actually teaches? Vincent Cheung’s commentary on this passage indicates otherwise: read more

You Might Be a Christian Alienist If…

Joseph Sobran defined Alienism as “a prejudice in favor of the alien, the marginal, the dispossessed, the eccentric, reaching an extreme in the attempt to ‘build a new society’ by destroying the basic institutions of the native. The most terrible fulfillment of this principle is Communism.” In Christianity, our responsibility to others is governed by relationship, such that we have a greater responsibility to our own family, race, town, state, region, and country, than we do to “the other”. Christians should favor the native and the normal over the alien and the novel. Nevertheless, it is undeniable that a great many of my fellow Christians today have given themselves over to strange affections of one variety or another. With that introduction, and with apologies to Jeff Foxworthy, I give you: read more

Unity of the Godhead When Man is Your God

“[H]umanity is the true god of the Enlightenment and of French Revolutionary thought. In all religious faiths, one of the inevitable requirements of logical thought asserts itself in a demand for the unity of the godhead. Hence, since humanity is god, there can be no division in this godhead, humanity. Mankind must therefore be forced to unite. Since Enlightenment philosophy is monistic, this means an intolerance of differences as unessential. National and racial differences, instead of being God-given and possessing richness and dignity to be respected, are to be obliterated. The goal is not communion but uniformity. Again, since humanity is god, the killing of any man either for crimes or in warfare is an offense. (The only permissible killing is possibly George Bernard Shaw’s execution ‘in a kindly manner’ of the enemies of socialism.) Humanistic pacifism is the result, and a pro-one-World, United Nations, peace-at-any-price faith. The godhead must be united. This faith ﬁnds expression in the U. S. Department of State Publication 7277, ‘Freedom From War,’ September, 1961. This faith was expressed in the midst of war by Churchill and F. D. Roosevelt in Point 8 of the Atlantic Charter, and was ascribed to their governments: ‘They believe all the nations of the world, for realistic as well as spiritual reasons, must come to the abandonment of the use of force.’ But Scripture does not consider the legitimate use of force as an evil but rather as a necessity and a good to be used to prevent the rise and triumph of evil. Roosevelt’s faith required messianic intervention with force and at the same time a condemnation of all force! Because of this coincidence of messianic interventionism and pacifism, this philosophy has created war even where men have talked most about world peace. The very idea of a United Nations requires war, in that it insists on irreconcilable and contradictory things. First, it insists on uniting a world and leveling all differences. Anyone with a sense of integrity must inevitably resist this leveling. Second, it seeks to create a super-state which must increasingly coerce every state, civil government, and person into line with its dream of messianic power. Third, it seeks to arrest history and freeze it into a particular mold in terms of Enlightenment thought. Inevitably, this faith is anti-Christian, and a conflict with Christianity is requisite to its being.” ~ R. J. Rushdoony in This Independent Republic read more

Facial Justice

“[Thomas More’s Utopia] was followed for the next few centuries by other utopian socialist writers, who refined More’s basic outline in terms of a more consistent, thoroughly paganized, socialist vision. In general, no practical steps were suggested for alleviating the condition of the poor; the image of the suffering poor was simply dredged up in order to incite hatred and envy against the rich. The philosophers were explicit in their insistence upon complete standardization: increasingly, equality meant identity. They dreamed of the “inevitable” approach of the socialist ideal, of total equality under a total State, when language would become static and unchanging, reading (and eventually thinking) would atrophy, all days would be alike, and even facial appearances would be identical.” ~ David Chilton in Igor Shafarevich’s The Socialist Phenomenon read more