Thinking clearly about race

Gerry Neal cuts through decades of liberal cant and expains clearly why race has historically been considered important.

Note carefully that there is a difference between the idea that we should treat all people fairly and justly and the idea that we should treat all people the same. A person should be fair and just to both his father and to a complete stranger. That does not mean that he should treat his father and a complete stranger in the same way. Indeed, because of a man’s relationship with his father, justice demands that he treat his father differently than he would treat a complete stranger. Thus the idea that treating people justly means treating them the same is a falsehood.

So is the idea that race is only a matter of skin color. In fact, not only is race more than skin color, skin color is not even essential to the meaning of the word race.

The English term “race”, when applied to human beings and not used to mean the sport of competitive running or an election campaign, comes through a French derivative, from the Old Italian word “razza”, which refers to lineage, ancestry, or stock. Race, when applied to people, refers to a line of biological descent…

It is important that we grasp this. The groups of people that we call races, are races because they are descended from a common ancestral group, not because they have distinct physical characteristics. The reason members of a race have distinct physical characteristics in common is because they are of a common stock. It is ancestry that is the most important part of the meaning of the word race.

Ancestry, however, is not something trivial like skin color. Anti-racists wish to trivialize. Hence their reducing race to its most trivial accident and speaking of it only in terms of skin color. They wish to eliminate any sense of loyalty to a group that is grounded in that group’s shared ancestry. Such loyalties stand in the way of their vision of a world where the individual’s only loyalty is to mankind. Therefore, they tell us from an early age that race is inconsequential that it is not important because it is only about skin color. We believe them because we recognize that group loyalty based upon something as shallow as skin color would be incredibly silly.

Our acceptance of their doctrine, however, hinders our forming a proper, natural attachment to our own people, even though such an attachment would not be based upon skin color but upon something far deeper. The anti-racist switch-and-bait has proven to be a remarkably effective brainwashing tool. We have drunk deep from the poisoned chalice containing their Kool-Aid.

5 Responses

  1. I note with some interest that American blacks and Hispanics appear to have no difficulty thinking clearly about race. Both populations have groups to help them in this effort….the NAACP, and the aptly entitled La Raza.

    Thus it seems that only whites have issues with being deracinated.

  2. Good point. Ironically, the goal of white nationalists is to make us more like blacks. (Just as, circa 1900, the goal of 3rd world nationalists was to remake their countries along Western lines.)

  3. What can be said in favour of white nationalism is that its proponents recognize that our societies, civilization, and peoples are dying, and they are actively opposed to that death.

    Unfortunately, white nationalism is prone to err in ways which make it an ineffective resistance to Western suicide. One of its fundamental errors, is its tendency to mistake a suicide for a murder and to look for some external (or infiltrating) enemy to pin the blame on. Related to the first error, is a second error, that of attributing the death of Western civilization to the religion that has been the heart and soul of the West for most of the last two millenia, rather than to the liberalism that has infiltrated the West and replaced Christianity, even in much of the Christian Church.

    White nationalism sees the problem – but it fails to diagnose it properly.

  4. Hi Gerry,

    All good points. Perhaps I don’t have enough of this extended-kinship loyalty that we’ve been endorsing. I have a hard time caring what happens to the white race if it abandons Christianity.

  5. I intend to follow up “The Suicide Cult” with an essay that addresses the topic from a theological perspective. The white nationalist argument against Christianity is that it is an universal faith. This is true, but the idea they share with so-called “Christian liberals” that Christian universalism is the enemy of national particularity and loyalty, is absolutely wrong.

    The attempt to break down nations into a one-world order is in fact fundamentally at odds with the Christian worldview. According to Scripture, God divided the nations at Babel. The only reversal of Babel which Christian Scripture recognizes is a spiritual reversal. At Pentecost, people from all nations heard the Gospel preached in their own tongue and believed The Church, Christ established there, will in His eternal Kingdom encompass people “from every tribe and nation”. That does not mean that we should be trying to break down tribal and national boundaries through political means in this age. That would be what Eric Voegelin called “immanentizing the eschaton” – an error he identified with the ancient enemy of Christian orthodoxy, the Gnostic heresy.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: