TWO READERS below express conflicting views of Christianity and race.

D.H. writes:

I have been reading with what can only be described as a morbid curiosity as your conversations on race and interracial marriage unfolded. I don’t know how old you are, but I have lived a long time, seen a lot and the tone of the comments on your post struck me as the rantings of a bunch of people who frankly, need redemption from themselves. I want to keep this short f I can, so I will briefly touch on just a few of the ridiculous and sad commentary that was shared by you and your supporters. 

One of the questions you raised was whether or not the body is simply a house for the soul or if it has intrinsic meaning. The answer to that question really depends on what you believe. The Bible makes it clear that the body has meaning in as much as it is the vehicle through which we perform good works or evil works. When I walk to keep myself fit, I do so primarily because I view my body as God’s temple and I need to take the best possible care of it do His will.Secondarily, I do it so that will look and feel my best as I serve my husband and family, which incidentally is also a command of Scripture so my two reasons are actually one. My body is a temple to serve God- or to serve the kingdom of darkness. Of course for those whose primary focus is on this life and their own needs, wants, desires, and opinions, the the body holds primary importance for its own sake. It will of course be worshipped and held in the highest regard until its demise and its occupant lifts his (or her) eyes in hell. 

Another outlandish support given for the superiority of the white race is that “whites sell”. It was in fact this claim that compelled me to send in my comment despite my understanding that I will be savaged for my opinion. The simple fact is that the ones with the power are the ones who set the agenda for what is consdered beautiful. Since America is a country founded by and primarily ruled by white people, it is preposterous to claim that whites are used for marketing purpose because they are naturally more beautiful. This is simply a matter of people putting forth the images they most relate to. The broad arms of mass media influence everyone within its reach and people are drawn to the images of beauty with which they are most frequently presented.The images used to sell products reflect the most perfect air-brushed images of the most beautiful white women (and other races) that the combination of biology and technology can produce. I have seen very beautiful white women, and very ugly ones. I have seen ugly Mexican and black women, and have seen gorgeous women of these races as well. No race has the market cornered on beauty. Since true beauty radiates from within, and the materialistic nightmare that is becoming characteristic of America is something that should be shunned instead of embraced, I wonder that marketing is used as evidence of anything. 

I felt particularly sorry for that poor gullible black woman who realized far too late into the conversation that she was dealing with white supremacists. And then I thanked God that there are people among us who despite every reason not to, exhibit childlike faith. It is with great fear and trembling that I warn you and your like-minded friends that you are in danger of hell’s fire. Whatever else Jesus might have been, He was not a traditionalist. In fact, He made it His primary mission in ministry to overthrow man-made traditions for the purpose of sharing God’s love with all people and loving them equally despite their background. There are far too many people who believe they are Christians, but they are in fact traditionalists who are Christians simply because they were born to a family attached to a Christian denomination. True Christianity is marked by a born again experience, complete with a broken spirit, contrite heart, and love of all mankind borne from the reality of how sinful we are and how worthy we are of eternal damnation. The only “tradition” God expects us to uphold is His eternal characteristic of holiness. He can discriminate if He so desires because He is God, perfect in His holiness. We are not. 

It is impossible to feel superior to anyone and be a Christian. This has been an eye-opening conversaton to behold. You have inspired me to pray in ways that I cannot describe. I suppose I should thank you for that. 

If you were interested, I happen to be Native American. I was going to leave that out, but I know it matters a great deal to you all.

 Laura writes:

I basically agree with D.H.’s point about feminine beauty. One commenter expressed the view that white women are the most beautiful in the world. I don’t agree with that but it seems a natural thing for a white man to think. I agree with D.H. that the prevalence of white models in advertising and fashion is more a reflection of the targeted audience than any objective truth of white beauty. I don’t agree with her statement that “true beauty radiates from within,” as much as I’d like to think it does. Character and virtue radiate from within and may lead us to disregard appearance. But physical beauty is just that. It’s physical. There are spectacularly beautiful women who are hideous on the inside and that doesn’t affect their appearance. If D.H.’s statement were true, every supermodel would be a saint.

D.H. misconstrues my point about the body, but perhaps I did not make myself clear. My point was that it is not sinful to feel affection for the physical particulars of family and kin and is in fact in keeping with  the sacramental nature of the body. Affection is not the same as worship nor do physical particulars constitute the highest part of human nature. DH goes on to chide me: “Of course for those whose primary focus is on this life and their own needs, wants, desires, and opinions, the body holds primary importance for its own sake. It will of course be worshipped and held in the highest regard until its demise and its occupant lifts his (or her) eyes in hell.” I don’t see what this has to do with what I was saying or how I was advocating universal selfishness.

D.H. refers to Terry, the commenter who wrote in response to previous posts, as “that poor black woman” who wandered into an ambush. Judging from the contact via e-mail I have had with Terry, I would not characterize her as an hapless victim who needs to be protected from white supremacists. She is an intelligent woman who is perfectly capable of sticking up for herself.  She made what others viewed as a very strong anti-white statement. My hunch is D.H. would not be writing in at all if only anti-white statements were made. It is the assertion of pride in their heritage by whites that so angers her. Whites can be called evil oppressors who have deliberately kept others down to the point of actively encouraging black crime and illegitmacy, and D.H. considers that sort of opinion in perfect keeping with her pseudo-Christian ethics. 

D.H. said: “It is impossible to feel superior to anyone and be a Christian.” No, that’s not true. It is impossible to be a Christian and feel morally superior to others on the basis of any natural or accidental endowments, racial or individual. If I am rich, I am not morally superior because I am rich. If I am Asian, I am not morally superior because I am Asian. If I am intelligent, I am not morally superior because I am intelligent. None of these inherited or acquired endowments are the basis of spiritual salvation.

Whites are not by nature morally inferior to others. That’s a Christian view. Also, it is not a human prerogative to condemn others to hell.  

A.M. writes, in response to the post “The White Race is a Dangerous Fiction”:

I don’t know what planet Mrs. Johnson has been living on, but on this one there is most certainly a white race. There is also such a thing as white culture. I never alluded to “White American culture”. White culture is European culture; white civilization is European civilization. One may choose to call it by different names, such as Greco-Christian civilization, or Greco-Hebraic civilization, but whatever you call it, it is real.

Mrs. Johnson also misrepresents me as being fixated on whiteness. White is a short form for European-derived, or Western. In fact many people who are classed as white have an olive tan, particularly those of Mediterranean European provenance. But as a generalization it works, and people understand what it refers to.

Whiteness isn’t everything per se, but it is a correlate of more important attributes such as facial morphology, temperament, intellectual ability and other important genetic traits. Nor is having a European genetic profile a sufficient condition for being classed as Western, just a necessary one. Some North Africans and Albanians could be considered to be approximately “white”, but their religious beliefs prevent them from being members of our civilization.

I’m a bit fuzzy on the exact numbers, but I believe according to the single origin theory of human origins, the ancestors of Caucasoids (roughly, whites) and Mongoloids left East Africa 100,000 years ago. The ancestors of Europeans and East Asians went their separate ways about 40,000 years ago. As you would expect, people living in radically different environments evolve different traits in response to these environments. You don’t need to be a Darwinist or atheist (I am neither) to accept this premise, it’s just common sense. And indeed this is exactly what the scientific evidence reveals!

She claims that Europeans and European-Americans never identified as white, only as members of their ethnic groups. At one time there was limited contact between different human groups, as transportation logistics prevented the mass migrations we see today. It stands to reason that people would draw sharper distinctions between themselves and their close neighbors in those days. There was less intermarriage, even between closely-related groups. Intraracial distinctions were all the masses saw in their daily lives, so they were sharper. People identify first with their immediate family, then their extended family, then their tribe and clan, then their nation and finally their civilization. Thus when a conspicuously alien people arrive in their midst, people close ranks and feel more kinship with those who are closer to them, even those with whom they once had quarrels. I am sure if Martians invaded from outer space, humans would more readily identify with members of other races. This does not, however, eliminate affinity for one’s race or ethnic group.

She also states: “I truly have difficulty with this constant talk of the idol of whiteness, when the talk should be oriented around actual European ethnic folkways…” This model of identity is more exclusive than the one she attributes to me! European ethnic groups are subsets of the white race, so if an African or Polynesian cannot plausibly pass for white, they certainly can’t pass for French or German. If you flood Germany with swarthy Turks, it’s no longer Germany. If you flood France with black Africans and Maghrebi Muslims, it’s no longer France. You can say it is, but a dark Muslim “France” is no more authentically French than a national football team full of non-white imports carrying French passports.

Until the immigration moratorium of 1924, white immigrant groups tended not to marry out. Over a few generations, the barriers did come down. Yet white Americans have never intermarried with non-white Americans at anywhere near the same rate, despite the best propagandizing efforts of the anti-white, marxist media. Mrs. Johnson should ask herself why groups like the Jews and Italians were absorbed into the pre-existing white population in fairly little time, while other groups with a far longer presence in America still haven’t done so. One cannot say it is because of evil white racism: Jews and Italians suffered similar hardships when they first arrived. Assimilation is only partly stalled by the host population’s ethnocentrism. The new arrival also feels instinctively out of place because of their obviously different appearance. Even putting aside physical differences, the native and the new arrival usually differ in their innate qualities, their likes, dislikes and habits, so they are incompatible. The European immigrants were absorbed because not only did they have a similar religious and civilizational background as the native whites, they were also racially similar. They blended in because they differed by degree, but not in kind. The difference between races is a difference in kind, so they do not mix easily.

I contend that wanting to preserve whiteness is not ungodly because it does not constitute idolatry. Whites are the only group not allowed to advocate for their survival. This is in part because whites have so much more to preserve. No one challenges non-whites’ right to preserve their culture, whether it be female genital mutilation, cannibalism or voodoo. Since whites created something so vastly superior to what most other groups did, the non-whites would like to get rid of the source of the superior culture. By erasing whites from history, non-whites can create a revisionist history that credits them with great white discoveries and accomplishments. Muslims are particularly noted for this practice.

What is ungodly is the intellectual laziness of many so-called Christians who think they should stick their heads in the sand and leave the problems of this world to God. Christians are enjoined to make the world a better place. By preaching one-world universalism, they are inviting strife. Humans are tribal, and wishing they were not will not make this problem go away. These “Christians” are no different from leftists who vote based on how they want the world to be, not how it is. The outcome is always disastrous.

To address another point of Mrs. Johnson’s, that “white-idol worshippers are convinced ‘those people benefit from so much at our expense.'” Others DO benefit from whites, and not only over the past 500 years. Going back to antiquity and earlier, whites and North Asians have consistently created advanced societies. Backwardness and barbarism are constant features of many societies going back thousands of years. When members of these societies migrate, they tend to remain backward in their new homes. You may not like it, but it’s objectively true.

Please follow and like us: