RACE, n. [L. radix and radius having the same original. This word coincides in origin with rod, ray, radiate, &c.]
1. The lineage of a family,
or continued series of descendants from a parent who is called the
stock. A race is the series of descendants indefinitely … Hence the long
race of Alban fathers come.
2. A generation; a family of descendants …
3. A particular breed; as a race of mules; a race of horses; a race of sheep.
Of such a race no matter who is king. ~Webster’s 1828 Dictionary
Strange days are these. I say they are strange because the current
socio-religious climate has degenerated to the point where we now have
need of a reassertion and clarification of matters which were, from a
Christian vantage, regarded as the most elementary facts of life, even
as recently as sixty years ago. It is this strangeness of the current
milieu which now compels me, as a Christian, to render an apologetic for
the reality of race. To start with, it’s rather difficult to discuss
the reality of race without examining the conceptual paradigm which has
ostensibly outlawed it — the relatively new term of “racism.” As Craig
Bodeker has
so adroitly shown,
“racism” is defined in ways so numerous and mutually contradictory as
to render it a useless term. If it means everything in general, it
means nothing in particular.
But in no way tarnishing Mr. Bodeker’s work, I here treat only two
major trends of definition: namely, the two diametrically opposed and
mutually exclusive perspectives to which White and non-White
“anti-racists” have rallied themselves. Racism, according to
non-Whites, is “prejudice plus power,” and in that paradigm they go on
to identify power strictly with Whiteness. Since it is acknowledged that
everyone has prejudices, this definition implies that a racist is
nothing more than your average White person. Liberal Whites, on the
other hand, have opted for an entirely different definition of the term:
they tend to define it as “the belief that race is real and
meaningful.” It is this liberal White point of view, in particular,
which this article addresses. But before proving racial realism, let us
reflect on precisely what these two mutually exclusive definitions do in
conjunction with one another: the non-Whites’ definition of racism —
the belief that all Whites are and only Whites can be racists by way of
“prejudice plus power” — actually marks themselves as racists in the
eyes of liberal Whites! And the liberal Whites’ definition of racism —
the belief that race be a meaningful concept — only heaps upon
themselves yet more adamant charges of racism from non-Whites, because
non-Whites perceive their definition as, first, an absurd and obvious
denial of reality, and second, an attempt on the part of Whites to evade
any corporate guilt for the storied crimes of the White race. To Blacks
and other non-Whites, the liberal Whites’ sudden denial of the
existence of the White race is analogous to the devil’s greatest trick —
convincing the world that he never really existed in the first place.
Now, the perceptive reader will have guessed the next twist in the
saga — even a liberal White cannot forever evade the reality that it is
predominantly non-Whites who insist that his a-racial view evidences him
as a particularly virulent brand of racist himself, a covert racist.
And when he finally comes face-to-face with that reality, he must
immediately condemn himself for even perceiving his accusers’ generally
non-White makeup! In the balance then, he can do nothing to escape his
racism. Either he is a racist for accepting the reality of race or he is
a racist for denying it. It may at first sound overstated, but when
you step back and consider the implications of the matter, it really is
the existential crisis of our time. The liberal White denial of race is
one of the greatest impediments to real peace amongst the races.
The “anti-racist” agenda embarked upon by every Western government in
the last sixty years is driven by fuzzy, and even downright
self-contradictory, ideological commitments. And as thinking Christians,
we are charged by the Almighty Himself to both extol truth and bring
low all that is a lie (2 Cor.10:5; Eph.5:11). If we do not, God assures
us that He will visit the out-workings of our sin upon our heads and the
heads of our posterity (Obad.1:15). Or, as Richard Weaver so succinctly
stated it, “Ideas have consequences.” With the charge of these
realities in mind, I ask the reader to restrain any trained knee-jerk
reaction so as to make room for a little truth. All truth is God’s
Truth, after all.
Let’s begin.
Bob Whitaker has famously pointed out the contemporary cognitive
dissonance at play in the fact that forensic anthropologists are
routinely called upon by the American court system to identify the races
of cadavers recovered from crime scenes. For the purpose of conclusive
victim-identification, these experts are asked to testify under oath
that they can definitively ascertain the race of a corpse from said
remains. Then, astoundingly, for the presumed purposes of not
engendering prejudice in a given jury, they are directed in a gross
contradiction of their previous testimony to swear that modern science
has concluded that races do not really exist at all. Though race is
universally accepted as a sufficiently tangible reality for the purposes
of forensically identifying victims and perpetrators, the courts have
mandated blatant perjury on the issue. But, of course, this
institutionalized contradiction is merely an attempt at continuity with,
and standardization of, the Marxist monkeyshines of an occupied
academia.
Even the most committed liberals are unable to wish away the
evidentiary avalanche. At the risk of regurgitating some well-worn
facts, I will briefly outline the burgeoning assemblage of crime and IQ
statistics which so transparently demonstrates differences beyond
physical appearance. We could pick any two races and find real,
demonstrable differences. However, for ease of illustration and
familiarity, we will contrast Europeans (Whites) and Africans (Blacks).
Blacks in America have been proven redundantly by every conceived
standard of measure to possess an average IQ of 85. That’s 20 points,
or two standard deviations, lower than the Euro-American average of 105.
When I say “every conceived standard,” I mean just that: liberals
constantly tweak the tests to favor Black culture, providing extra
programs, tutors, and cash prizes to inspire better performance in
Blacks. In some cases, they even mandate the addition of extra points
based upon race — the beneficiaries of which are always Blacks and
Mestizos. But even when the tests are rigged to favor Black and/or
Mestizo cultures, the gap still remains.
Now, while 85 is admittedly a better average than the 70-point average found among Blacks in Africa,
it still leaves a broad breadth of Black men unaccountable for their
actions by way of the fact that the Western world regards an IQ of 70 to
be, technically speaking, the line of demarcation for mental
retardation. In keeping with that resolve, the American justice system
officially regards anyone demonstrating a 70-point or lower IQ to be
incapable of distinguishing right from wrong or comprehending the
ramifications of their actions; this means that the courts will not
sentence Blacks in a manner befitting their crimes. This results in an
absurd under-representation of Blacks on death row and a continual
recirculation of the most vicious monsters back into society.
Think on these realities:
- 68% of all violent crime arrests are of Blacks.
- 60% of young adult Black males are armed with a weapon at all times.
- Blacks commit 8 times as many assaults as Whites.
- Blacks commit 14 times as many murders as Whites.
- Blacks commit 19 times as many armed robberies as Whites.
All categories of violent crime considered, Blacks are found to be 50
times more violent than Whites. Now, in order to understand the
enormity of that discrepancy, one need only translate it into a
percentage: Blacks are 5,000% more violent than their White
counterparts. If a neighborhood is only 8% Black, the average White
victim of violent crime in that area will still almost certainly
identify his or her assailant as Black — and for that matter, so will
the Black, Brown, and Yellow victims. While Blacks make up roughly 14%
of the American populace, half are women, and another margin is made up
of the very old and the very young, so the egregiously offending
demographic (Black males, age 13-35) make up about 3% of the U.S.
population. Incredibly, that 3% of the population is responsible for
more violence than all other people in the country combined.
To the endless chagrin of liberals, these figures aren’t compiled by
any dismissible right-wing source, as so many might wish. They are
compiled by the federal government, various universities, and the
seemingly endless armadas of liberal “think tanks” and ‘”action
committees” living off of government endowments. The ideological
partisanship is real enough, but it all runs rigidly against the
grudgingly inescapable findings. The evidence is just too monumental to
be effectively suppressed or explained away. And though the economic
materialist construes this disparity as the result of poverty in the
Black communities, this Marxist perspective is entirely undone by the
reality that America’s rural areas, despite being quite poor by national
standards, do not exhibit any sort of parity of criminal behavior with
Black communities. The distinguishing factor, of course, is their White
population. No matter where they are — be it America, Australia, New
Zealand, Iceland, or any of the countries of Europe — and no matter how
poor they happen to be, the worst White community is a more moral and
safer place than the best Black community. What’s more, this maxim
crosses over boundaries of faith by virtue of the fact that the least
Christian White neighborhood is still a many times more moral place than
the most Christian Black neighborhood. One may object to these
realities, but they remain realities nonetheless. The fact that this
sociological law remains to date unnamed is unacceptable. Let the
Christian-Newsom Constant be added to the American lexicon.
But propositionalists and egalitarians within the Church will
undoubtedly quip: “… but that’s only because the European has been
steeped in the Gospel so much longer than the African!” But this too
is wholly untrue. St. Philip’s ministry to the Ethiopian eunuch (Acts
8:27-39) marked the first-century inauguration of the Abyssinian church
and the institution of the Ethiopic See. African Christianity began
contemporaneously with European Christianity, but even where the
African’s perspectival expressions of the faith have most approached
something which we might regard as orthodox, their spirituality has
remained in numerous ways so distinct from our own that we have
historically had great difficulty even identifying their expressions of
the faith as Christian in the most basic sense. For instance, we find
that the African conception of the Christian family has typically been a
matriarch, overseen by her mother (a grand-matriarch, if you will), and
a male blood relative (usually the lesser matriarch’s brother),
together rearing the offspring of several different men. Generally, the
children are considered the property not of one family alone, but of the
village communally. Hillary Clinton notoriously tried to sell this
African model to Americans with the phrase, “It takes a village.” This
phrase quickly became a byword with which to mock liberals, but Blacks
took immediate offense at this because they understood American Whites
to actually be mocking African-”Christian” values. The predilection for
this type of familial organization has proven so strong in the African
that every colonial society of Blacks in the world has quite
unconsciously returned to this model as soon as the grip of European
paternalism is loosened. There are admittedly exceptions to this
pattern. The Masai tribe is one: the men take multiple wives, and in
order to support their tenuous patriarchy, they perform “circumcision”
on all their women to better ensure the fidelity of their wives.
Meanwhile, the men still remain gratuitous philanderers. But the
exceptions actually prove the rule as well, do they not?
No matter how long Whites have spent trying to imbue them with the
idea of the Christian family, Christianized Black societies shed the
institution as soon as Whites yield control back to Blacks. Hence,
Blacks in America, despite claiming Christianity at a higher ratio than
Whites, popularly conclude that “marriage is for White people.”
Consider also that in the year of our Lord 2011, African Christians
still routinely burn their children and their elderly alive for
suspicion of being witches.
But of course, Whites used to do the same, didn’t they? No, not
exactly. European Christians executed witches, to be sure. But most of
the accused were actually guilty of witchcraft. The only real question
of propriety arose regarding the matter of “spectral evidence”, i.e.,
witches appearing in a person’s dreams or as an apparition. Such were
at the time legitimate questions of jurisprudence in need of definitive
interpretation and resolution. It was the Salem Witch Trials in America
which eventually settled these matters, resolving that spectral
evidence could not meet the biblical bar for an eyewitness. That was
some 300 years ago. Once American courts arrived at this conclusion, the
insight was universally embraced across the entirety of the
European-stock Western world. Albeit, the hate crime (or more aptly
termed “thought crime”) laws of the post-civil rights era have actually
shoved modern jurisprudence into a far more primitive state than that of
the pre-Salem days — but that’s an issue for another article in itself.
What, then, do African Christians today cite as reasons for suspicion
of witchcraft? Typically, they connect bad weather and a child’s
profusion (or lack) of talkativeness as indications of witchcraft. The
irony of the matter is that while they burn toddlers and grandmothers
for their suspected leagues with spirits, even the average “Reformed”
African church service features blood sacrifice of animals, trances,
necromancy (speaking with and asking favors of the dead), and various
incantations commanding nature to do their bidding — all in Jesus’ name,
of course. Basically, the most devout Christians among them are
themselves ostensibly guilty of witchcraft, more so than their mute
babies, that’s for certain.
Add to that the fact that they are yet to make any substantial effort
to eradicate their peoples’ grievous and ongoing cultural practices of
gang-rape, child-rape, and cannibalism.
According to the 2008 National Census, 85.5% of the
[Liberian] population practice Christianity … Liberia is considered a de
facto Christian state. Public schools offer biblical studies, though
parents may opt out their children. Commerce is prohibited by law on
Sundays and major Christian Holidays.
Liberia is, on paper at least, one of the most theonomic countries in
the world, but it remains a living hell-on-earth nonetheless. The same
goes for every other African-Christian land. The question must be asked —
why?
Even after two millennia of European missions to and discipleship of
the African, White Christians yet find the church environment fostered
by Africans difficult to differentiate from the grossest expressions of
paganism.
One such ethno-cultural handicap seems central to the entire discussion
of the African’s interaction with the faith: many a White missionary,
explorer, and Bible translator blanched to learn that, prior to
colonialism, Blacks were found to possess no corollary in any native
dialect for the words “promise,” “bond,” “oath,” “dedication,”
“contract,” or “covenant.” And it wasn’t just that they lacked the
words; no, they lacked the very concepts.
That conceptual vacancy bespoke a uniquely impaired psychology and
spiritual condition back of it. Since this continuum of ideas was
understood as so indispensable to Christian family, vocation, religion,
and civilization, Europeans were compelled to coin like terms on behalf
of the African by splicing pre-existing words of the native dialects
together in hopes of approximating the needed concepts. The result was
that, after the Europeans created written forms to parallel the natives’
vocalizations, African Bibles were translated, and the Gospel sown,
using terms like “chained-to,” ‘tied-down,” “tethered,” and so on to
communicate the covenantal concepts. Of course, these sorts of
ad hoc
translations still fell short of the true meaning of our European
equivalents, so many thought the African would better understand
Christianity if he were only made literate in a European tongue. But
this approach of teaching them in English that they are “contracted to
their employer” has fared no better than teaching them in a Congolese
dialect that they are “chained-to their master.” In fact, a strong case
can be made that the former strategy has yielded less fruit than the
latter. No, more than a strong case — it’s just a fact.
It wasn’t long ago that Christians were honest about these things.
Here is the collective attestation of the United Christian Missions to
Africa as relayed by their congressional secretary in 1899:
The sterility and unprogressiveness of negro
civilizations, negro states, are as much due to the paralyzing death
grip of Islam as to nature’s foreclosure of his intellectual powers when
she mortgages the growth of his brain after puberty. [p.71] . . .
Africa is home to the most man-like apes and the most ape-like men.
[p.164] . . . The Negro has an animal-look . . . skin as rancid as a
goat’s . . . and inherent mental inferiority. [p.166] . . . The negro is
unmoral . . . an overgrown child. [p.167] . . . . His animal spirits
are irrepressible and the mothers do all the parenting. [p.168] . . .
Anarchy is the dominant chord of the Hamite. [p.169] . . . The lost
churches of Abyssinia . . . Africa was a land of death shades . . .
Darkness covered the earth and gross darkness her peoples. [p.178] . . .
Ethiopic Christianity shows the utmost amount of superstition that can
overwhelm a church without killing it . . . acceptance of this view
[that they are truly Christians] strains our view of Christianity and
the Church almost to breaking . . . whatever extravagant ritualism . . .
and fatal divorce between ethics and religion disfigures oriental
Christianity reveals itself most hideously in Abyssinia. [p.192] . . .
Negro theology, when eliminated of superstition retains little religion.
Black Africans, unlike Europeans or Asians, have no ruins of past
civilization, no archeological, written, nor even oral history of which
to speak. They never created any written languages. Nor did they smelt
metals of any kind, invent bricks, or even produce the wheel. As
incredible as it may be to contemplate, as a race, they have barely
harnessed fire. Aside from the importation and subsidization of all of
these on the part of Europeans or Arabs to a lesser degree, Africans
would still today be living in pre-paleolithic conditions. For such
reasons, Africa was in more Christian times known at once as “The Lost
Continent,” “The Pariah Continent,” and most ubiquitously, “The Dark
Continent.” “Africa stood for mystery and symbolism in religious
thought. The very name has by etymology been interpreted as meaning
sealed, secret, or separated.”
Now, I fully sympathize with the likely reaction of a sensitive
reader to balk at all of this focus on the African’s pitiable condition
as uncouth or even cruel, but I beg the reader’s forbearance here: this
author does not intend to needlessly denigrate or insult anyone, only to
make plain the contrast between races which are categorically dismissed
in the public square today — because this denial of race, and of the
racial distinction between Blacks and Whites in particular, has, is, and
will yet still lead to catastrophic violence on our own children if not
otherwise addressed. Truth be told, the levels of rape, murder, and
mayhem suffered by Whites in close proximity to the Black race are
otherwise found nowhere but in theaters of actual war. Plainly put, the
cost of denying the reality of race is carnage and death. Truly, in the
end, this benefits no one. And as regards Africans in particular, the
Scripture itself demands we reckon with the fact that they are “a nation
[lit. ethnicity] scattered and peeled . . . a people [lit. race]
terrible from their beginning onward” (Isa.18:2, 7). Again, I know these
words may seem shocking to the modern Christian, but the Scripture
forthrightly distinguishes between peoples, and oftentimes even makes
declarative value judgments of whole ethnic groups.
It is on this basis that St. Paul could say, “‘Cretans are always
liars, evil beasts, lazy gluttons.’ This testimony is true”
(Tit.1:12-13). No matter how one slices it, the apostle and the prophet
(with God back of them) do distinguish between peoples as peoples. God
even addresses particulars of ethnic taxonomy such as skin color when
He asks rhetorically by the pen of Jeremiah, “Can the Ethiopian change
his skin or the leopard his spots?” (Jer.13:23) So, too, do we find
numerous flattering references to Israelites as “white and ruddy” (1
Sam.16:12; 17:42; Song of Solomon 5:10; Lam.4:7). The fact that the
context of the passage in Jeremiah is all about “soiled” coverings
intimates that the prophet’s invocation of the African’s color is less
than complimentary, to say the least. Contrary to what the 501(c)3
preachers say today, God is obviously not colorblind.
Not without reason, then, does contemporary experience follow suit as babies’ reaction to races is proven to be innate. Our endemic reactions to racial morphology stem from pre-programmed neuro-chemical reactions in the brain.
This means that prior to any “racist” programming or “colorblind”
indoctrination, children perceive race as real and make certain
reflexive value judgments about it as well. The reactions are patterned,
consistent, testable, and reproducible. These reactions are endemic to
the point of being autonomic, like squinting in the sunlight, or
shivering in the cold. They are nothing less than a candid and reflexive
apprehension of and reaction to creation. Though children’s reaction
to light and dark complexion is marked, it isn’t a matter of color
alone. There are other morphological-aesthetic matters at issue as
well, but babies’ most negative responses are nonetheless connected to
the darkest (Hamitic) faces while their most positive responses are
reserved for the lightest (Japhethic) faces.
The conservative luminary Edmund Burke, known to our forefathers
simply as “the Christian Statesman,” reached the same conclusion long
ago in his famous essay on beauty:
It is very hard to imagine, that the effect of any idea
so universally terrible in all times and in all countries, as darkness,
could possibly have been owing to a set of idle stories, or to any cause
of a nature so trivial, and of an operation so precarious . . .
blackness and darkness are in some degree painful by their natural
operation, independent of any association whatsoever. . . . [There is]
the story of a boy, who had been born blind . . . [by an operation] he
received his sight . . . and upon accidentally seeing a negro woman, he
was struck with great horror at the sight. The horror in this case, can
scarcely be supposed to arise from any association. They had . . . their
effects from their natural operation.
Christians, having been steeped in the Marxist social theory of the
cultural revolution, have recently begun trying to dismiss these innate
reactions as resulting from the noetic corruption of our sin nature, but
this line of reasoning actually indicts the Holy Spirit Himself by the
fact that the Scripture speaks ubiquitously in terms of this very same
light/good, dark/bad paradigm (Job 24:13,17; Dan.2:22; John 3:19-21;
12:46; etc.). This metaphysic of light and dark are so delineated in
Scripture because “God is light; in him there is no darkness at all” (1
John 1:5). “And God saw that the light was good; and God separated the
light from the darkness” (Gen.1:4). Are we saying then that the Hamitic
race is not made in the image of God? Certainly not. We are saying, as
the Scripture does, that “darkness hides Him” (Psa.18:11). The usual
markers which reveal the image of God in men are distinctly veiled in
the African’s constitution, both inwardly and outwardly.
This state of having the image of God veiled by darkness is not
exclusive to the African. All races of men actually share in this
condition to a lesser degree as God forms them in the wombs of their
mothers: the unborn child cannot reason as we do, or level coherent
arguments, or do many other things. Darkness covers him, mind and body.
While the secularist deduces from this nascent state that the child
lacks personhood, the Christian says, instead, that the child’s humanity
is merely veiled or hidden. As with the unborn child then, so too with
the African in some respects; it is in no way a denial of the African’s
full humanity and right to ethical treatment to be honest about his
intellectual and moral capacities. Many are tempted to dismiss this
understanding of the African’s condition as “hateful,” but doing so
would likewise undermine the pro-life position regarding the unborn as
well. If it is a loving position to acknowledge the full humanity but
cognitive deficiencies of babies, how could we call it hateful in regard
to Blacks? To accept such a resolve for the former and reject it in
regard to the latter is to argue that Blacks are actually of greater
ontological value, or that they are more human than babies, or that it
is otherwise immoral to say any criticism about them — an untenable
position, indeed. It would grant the secularists’ argument
in toto.
But again, this isn’t about the reality of the African race in
particular so much as the reality of race in general. The mapping of the
human genome has provided a scientific “amen” in natural revelation
unto special revelation (i.e., Scripture) by confirming the
identifiability of certain gene clusters which accord precisely with the
conventionally perceived and biblically delineated ethnic groups. Now,
with nothing more than a swabbing from one’s mouth, geneticists can
identify not just the race of an individual, but his country of origin;
and in many cases they can even identify with extreme precision the very
towns and mountain ranges through which a person’s family line advanced
millennia ago. If race were not a reality, all of this would be
completely impossible, but, far from an impossibility, people have it
done all the time now.
And it dare not be forgotten that professor James Watson, the Nobel
Prize winner heralded as the “greatest scientist of our age” for his
cracking the DNA code, was publicly flogged in the press for telling the
obvious truth about race.
Bear that in mind the next time someone tells you that “science has
proven that race doesn’t exist”: when the greatest living expert on
genetics said otherwise, he was immediately shunned by all of the the
government-sponsored think tanks and stripped of his funding. The law of
political correctness dictates that science is not allowed to draw such
conclusions.
But we don’t really even need to delve into the DNA to accept what is plain to our senses: The ability to
identify race at a glance has actually proven more accurate than the ability to identify gender.
Clearly then, any argument which portrays race as arbitrary due to any
rare difficulty in distinguishing one sort from another would all the
more undermine the existence of gender. Again, ideas do indeed have
consequences:
as goes race, so goes gender.
To whatever extent we deny the existence of the former, we would be
compelled to deny the latter even more emphatically. This a Christian
can never do.
Even twins’ studies have proven redundantly that nature accounts for the majority of our behaviors, tastes, and predilections.
Clearly, the nurture aspect of culture is significant, but not to the
extent that it overrides one’s nature. As one would expect if genetics
were indeed significant in the constitution of human societies, ethnic
similarity in marriage is found to result in greater fertility.
Then, there’s the issue of xenotransplantation, i.e. heterogeneous
organ, blood, marrow, or tissue transplantation. Even radical leftist
Louis Stokes, while decrying what he sees as a thoroughly racist system
of selection for organ transplantation, grudgingly admits that
“disparity is due to biological matching problems.”
What Mr. Stokes objects to, then, is not merely some arbitrary or
unjust policy of discrimination, but creation itself. His war is with
reality, and the God of reality who is behind these things. As the
American Society of Transplantation attests, the transfusion of blood,
bone marrow, and organs is possible heterogeneously (cross-race) only
through “the development of drugs that suppress the immune system.”
This immunosuppression generally destroys a patient’s immune system for
good.
Yes, legal minds are in a frenzy to somehow undo these natural
distinctions; they war against these undeniable and indelible realities
because they run contra their egalitarian dreams:
Disparities in access to transplantable organs can be
attributed to the strong preference for antigen matching promulgated by
the Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network (OPTN). The more
similar the donor and the recipient are genetically, the more likely the
chances that the antigens will match. Thus kidneys from white donors
will most likely be given to white recipients, even where
African-Americans, and other individuals with slightly distinct genetic
make-up have waited longer on the same recipient list.
Given
the organ transplant issue, the experts can
a fortiori say:
Compared to organ transplants, bone marrow donations need
to be even more genetically similar to their recipients. . . . the vast
majority of successful matches take place between donors and patients
of the same ethnic background. Since all the immune system’s cells come
from bone marrow, a transplant essentially introduces a new immune
system to a person. Without genetic similarity between the donor and the
patient, the new white blood cells will attack the host body. In an
organ transplant, the body can reject the organ, but with marrow, the
new immune system can reject the whole body.
Plainly then, multiracial societies exacerbate transplantation
problems in every way, and no amount of politically correct platitudes
or liberal indignation can undo what God hath wrought. The
anti-racialism with which liberal Whites are so enamored does not come
cheap. It costs many, many lives. Every year. Every day. And in many
different ways. Even the unfortunate mixed-race offspring resulting from
the forced integration imposed upon us by the social engineers
demonstrate markedly elevated levels of antisocial behavior by
comparison to their mono-racial counterparts.
That’s really saying something when you consider the crime and
pathology statistics generated by Blacks and, to a lesser degree,
Hispanics (Latin-American-Indians) as well.
While we’re still on the topic of medicine, it should be mentioned
that Blacks are uniquely susceptible to rickets, hypertension, kidney
disease, diabetes, heart disease, glaucoma, sickle cell anemia, the
contraction of HIV, the progression from HIV to AIDS, sociopathy,
schizophrenia, psychopathy, and many other anti-social behaviors
besides. Black children are prone to shorter gestation periods (a full
week shorter than Caucasians),
low birth weight, SIDS (crib death), ADD, ADHD, dyslexia, and
congenital retardation. Meanwhile, they are also prone to above-average
testosterone, higher ratios of fast-twitch muscle fiber, thicker skulls
and tooth enamel, denser bones, longer limbs, high VO max, and
resistance to UV (sunlight) exposure — all of which is to say that their
peculiar handicaps are somewhat offset by their collective gifts, just
as is the case with every other race.
In the case of Whites, for example, we are more prone to skin cancer,
lupus, osteoarthritis and rheumatoid arthritis, as well as many
allergies. (Like Blacks, we Whites too have our own distinguishing
gifts, which, for both brevity’s and discretion’s sake, I shall entrust
to the reflections of the reader.) Every medical facility and individual
health provider is constrained by these facts of biology. As much as
they may disdain it, they are forced to gather certain ethnic/racial
information in order to provide effective care, because said data bears
critically on matters of health. Not all treatments work the same on all
races — because race is indeed real.
But this brings us to the crux of the anti-racialist argument — their
assertion (in the face of all observation) that difficulty in
identifying the ethnicity of any one individual actually invalidates the
notion of meaningful categorization in all cases. In other words, if
an African-European hybrid is neither an African nor an European, then
both categories are invalid concepts. These blurry, in-between
categories disprove the existence of race
in toto. So they allege.
But this is a textbook expression of the logical fallacy known as
Loki’s Wager.
I think the best analogy fit for the issue is that of the seashore —
though we may have difficulty discerning where the land ends and the sea
begins, it in no way nullifies the existence of either category. On the
contrary, the blurry edges actually serve to define said categories:
the exceptions prove the rule. As with sea and shore, so too with the
various races of men; the blurry examples solidify our apprehension that
there are real racial distinctions. And, ironically enough, even the
charge of racism presupposes the existence of race. Otherwise, the
anti-racist wouldn’t even be able to recognize the existence of
“oppressed” ethnic minorities as minorities, which is to say that the
a-racialist/anti-racist is actually just as guilty of racism as the one
whom he condemns for racism. The logical conclusion of the liberal
White definition of racism is that racism is an inescapable constant for
everyone, the anti-racist included. Worse than useless, their
perspective can only precipitate endless litigation, covetousness,
guilt, enmity, violence, mayhem, and ultimately death. The dream of
equality proves a shallow grave for us all.
Of course, in order to be consistent, the anti-racialist would have
to demand that Indian tribal holdings undergo “civil rights
reappropriations” (read: legalized theft), just as our own communities
have, because Indians, like the White race, are merely a social
construct with no basis in reality. When the Indians began evicting all
the Whites from their reservations last year on the basis that these
Whites could not, by definition, qualify as Indians, nary a word was
uttered in protest by anyone. In fact, Whites applauded them for taking a
stand to protect and preserve their people from encroachment by Whites.
It seemed as if the anti-racial dogma had been laid aside, at least in
regard to the Indian. The Indian did in fact exist. This year, the
Cherokee Nation began evicting Blacks from their sovereign tribal lands
on the same legal, moral, and logical grounds on which Whites had been
evicted the year prior. But this time, it would not be allowed.
Discrimination against Whites as Whites was acceptable, but
discrimination against Blacks was — you guessed it — “racist.” So, once
again, we return to absurdity: race is apparently acknowledged as real
if it preserves the Indian against White encroachment, but race is
declared fictional when the Indians seek to protect themselves against
encroachment from Blacks. Everyone knows it’s absurd, perhaps none more
so than the Indian.
This entails that no one can begin to live according to the
anti-racialists’ standard, because it indicts the anti-racialist as much
as it does the racialist. Even if they’re right, they’re wrong.
Moreover, it is the Scripture which gives us one of the most clearly
expressed refutations of the a-racial/anti-racial view, in that the text
everywhere presupposes the legitimate, lawful, and ontological reality
of races and ethnic groups. Specific terms are used redundantly
throughout, such as Gentiles and nations (Heb.
goyim/Grk.
ethnos), which mean, just as the Greek hints, “ethnicities.” Similarly, the term peoples (Grk.
genos)
is the root of “genes,” “genetics,” “genealogy,” etc., and is generally
translated by linguists forthrightly as “races.” There are even many
words used in Scripture which denote taxonomical, lineal, and legal
exclusion from a race: for instance, the term which appears as “other
peoples” (Grk.
allogenes) is the composite of two Greek words,
allos (“other”) and
genos (“races”). And the term rendered “illegitimate” or “bastard” (Heb.
mamzer/Grk.
nothos)
in Deuteronomy 23:2 is candidly understood by linguists to mean
“mixed-race, mongrel,” as is proven by its translation in Zechariah 9:6,
which says “a mongrel race shall dwell in Ashdod.”
These are not controversial matters to language experts, only to modern
theologians who desperately seek to obfuscate the plain meaning of the
text in favor of an egalitarian sociology. Wherever the text speaks in
these overtly ethnic categories (which is virtually everywhere), moderns
are compelled by the spirit of our liberal age, perhaps unwittingly, to
spiritualize all said references. Even the word which is often
rendered as “pagan” (Heb.
zuwr) in the Old Testament of our
English Bibles literally means “alien or foreign.” Any religious
connotation assumed when one sees the word “pagan” in those texts is but
an anachronistic eisegetical (misinterpretive) imposition made by
translators. It is patently a racial or tribal term.
The revelation of Jesus Christ through His holy Word, the Bible, and
His atoning work for mankind rests upon His irrefutable status as the
pure-blood claimant to the throne of Israel — as the “genealogy of Jesus
Christ” (Grk.
Christogenea) referenced in the Gospels
literally means “the racial history of the Christ.” If we deny the
meaningfulness of lineal descent and race, Christ could not then be
royalty of the race of Shem, Abraham, and David; nor then would He be
the holy Seed promised to come through them as Saviour to all the tribes
of men. Such a view is the immediate denial of the Gospel itself. A
Christian can have none of it. By definition, then, the anti-racialism
which has so recently come to ascendence in the churches is plainly
self-contradictory and can be squared neither with Scripture nor with
reason. Albeit a pretty lie, it is an obvious lie nonetheless.
