What is Faith and Heritage?
As discussed in our About section, F&H is a webzine aimed at presenting the views of a pro-Western ethnonationalist and traditionalist Christian perspective and facilitating a forum for others to join into the discussion. We aim to provide a robust and irenic approach to racial issues from a biblical perspective, especially for the purposes of swaying conservative Christians who have become convinced of an unbiblical view on race and nationhood through cultural Marxism’s saturation of our churches and society.
Our work is produced by a multitude of authors who reside mostly in the United States, but also farther around the globe. F&H is funded by a non-profit Christian charity and relief foundation and by readers like you.
Due to our departure from politically correct thought patterns on ethnicity and race, combined with the intellectual dishonesty and lack of Christian charity among the preponderance of our critics, the following are our answers to typical accusatory-toned hostile questions we frequently encounter. We do not assume all new inquirers to our site harbor the uncharitable dispositions underlying these questions, but we do prefer to reconstruct the oft-heated exchange as it would generally occur.
1. Why do you make such a big deal out of skin color?
Different races can ordinarily be identified by different skin colors, but God created race to be a much deeper and more holistic reality than skin color. Race is not a construct made by man, but a meaningful and important creation of God for our social harmony and solidarity. Non-whites generally believe that race is important, and thus that “colorblindness” is no virtue. (Witness the various organizations explicitly promoting black, Mexican, and Asian interests.) We agree.
For more reading, please see “The Reality of Race.”
2. Why is this site so racist?
The term “racist” can be used in all sorts of different ways. In one statement it will refer to ungodly hatred or murder based solely on race; in another, it will refer to believing that race exists; in another, it will refer to any advocacy of white interests (e.g. a White Student Union); in another, it will refer to noticing that someone belongs to a particular race; in another, it will refer to any treatment of people that differs according to race (e.g. an immigration policy); in another, it will refer to any treatment of people that does not suitably differ according to race (e.g. non-affirmative action hiring); in another, it will refer to any joke that references a person’s race, unless he’s white; in another, it will refer to believing that whites are better at anything than non-whites; in another, it will refer to any preference a person has for his own race rather than another, if the culprit is white; in another, it will refer to any whites who are not sufficiently genuflective or penitent towards non-whites; and so on. Notwithstanding its ever-changing meaning – or rather, precisely because of it – the term’s practical utility consists in its crushing any promotion of European interests, especially European Christian interests, as if with the wave of a wand. Ever since the term was first popularized by communist Leon Trotsky, “racist” has become a favorite word in the arsenal of both liberals and conservatives. But any accuser of racism, for his charge to stick, must prove two claims: (1) that “racism,” as he is employing the term, is a sin, and (2) that the men accused of “racism,” as he defines it, are guilty of that act. Often an accuser of racism can establish either (1) or (2), but a case cannot be made to establish both (1) and (2) against our website or the principles we and our cohorts promote.
For more information, please see Craig Bodeker’s documentary, “A Conversation About Race,” which shows the incredible and self-contradictory flexibility with which the term “racism” is used. Also see “False Sins,” which speaks further to the new cavalcade of cultural Marxist sins besides “racism,” and “A Biblical Outlook on Pride,” which explains why it is not a sinful form of “racism” to have pride in one’s people or accomplishments.
3. But isn’t it racist to prefer your race over other people?
According to one of the many uses of the word “racist,” yes, it is indeed racist to love or prefer your own race more than others…if you’re white. Non-whites are applauded for preferring their own people and defending their peculiar interests and goals, but whites doing the same are derided as “racists.” This use of the term “racist,” then, is not descriptive of any particular sin. It is no more sinful to love your own racial people over others (Rom. 9:3) than it is to love your own family over other families (1 Tim. 5:8) or your own wife over other women (Eph. 5:25). Certainly, such a preferential love has the potential to be transformed into hatred against others – it is possible to idolize your racial people, your family, or your wife – but in appropriate proportions, these loves of nearer possession are healthy and God-ordained: perhaps “racist” but certainly not sinful.
For more reading, please see “To Preserve or Destroy: A Syllogistic Approach,” which explains how the alternative to preferring and loving one’s own people is their progressive destruction.
4. You mention some kinds of “rights” that whites have to their own nation. Why do you believe that whites are superior to everyone else?
National property rights, also known as borders, do not presuppose any superiority of particular characteristics. It would be no contradiction to say both that whites have a right to self-determination and that whites are the worst in every measurable category of civilization (though we do not believe it is true that whites are so lowly). In other words, labels like “superior” simply have nothing to do with the right to national self-determination.
This derogation of any desire for national borders is quite troublesome. The alternative to denying the existence or propriety of national borders is the imperialistic dream of a one-world government where everyone’s central allegiance is to the state, extinguishing any love for one’s own people. But if we understand that borders are healthy, the next question is determining the objective parameters by which borders should be established. The mainstream American answer is that everyone who agrees with the “American ideals” of democracy and equality can be an American, and thus that nations are defined by assent to propositions, not by heredity. Against such a propositional, imperialistic, and unhistorical notion of nations, our answer, and the biblical answer, is ethnonationalism.
For more reading, please see “A Biblical Defense of Ethno-Nationalism.” Please also see “Kinism: The Only Theonomy,” which demolishes the idea that a nation is constituted by a credible profession of faith, rather than by common descent. For concrete examples evidencing ethnically-based borders as God’s design, please see “Rivers of Blood,” “Sudanese Secession,” “Another Failing Artificial Country,” and “Research Group Finds Creating Boundaries Key to Reducing Ethnic Violence.” “Diversity, Unhappiness, and Distrust” also explains how diversity debilitates community.
5. This site is clearly white supremacist. Where do you believe whites got the right to rule everyone else?
Like the term “racist,” “white supremacist” has an array of meanings, though perhaps not as wide as “racist.” It will sometimes refer to any belief that whites have biologically-grounded strengths or advantages over other races, which is not sinful to believe so long as it corresponds with reality. However, “white supremacist” will sometimes refer to a belief that whites ought to have worldwide political reign, ruling other races in subjugation. We reject this latter belief; if an accusation of “white supremacy” is intended to have such a meaning, it is a slander. We simply want to be governed by our own people and by men who support our people, and we grant the same right of national sovereignty and self-determination to all other peoples.
For more reading, please see “The Law of Kin-Rule,” which establishes the biblical basis for national self-determination and rule by one’s own kin. Please also see “Doug Wilson, White Privilege, and White Pride,” which explains how it is appropriate to believe that whites have been blessed by God with certain genetic endowments.
6. You refer to America as if “whites” owned the place, but this is a nation of immigrants, and “whites” stole it from the Native Americans anyway.
That men moved into a land in order to settle it first does not entail that the land is a “nation of immigrants” with no justifiable basis for an ethnically restrictive immigration policy. Besides the absurd conclusion that this would turn every single nation on earth into a nation of immigrants (undermining the exclusive attribution of the title to America), this also contradicts how Americans viewed the ethnic basis of their own country before the treacherous Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965. And while there may have been abuses of some American Indians by European settlers, on the whole whites settled unoccupied lands and supplied appropriate remuneration when purchasing land from Indians.
For more reading, please see “Who Does America Belong To?”
7. How can you be pro-white at all, when whites have committed atrocities in history like slavery?
Let’s assume Confederate slavery was as evil as Hollywood and the government schools would have us believe. Let’s even suppose that – due to the real, substantial genetic unity of the white race – modern whites are truly responsible for making restitution to the ancestors of black slaves, even 150 years later. Even then, it still does not follow that whites cannot love their own people or advocate for white interests today. But add to this that slavery was not at all introduced by the Old South, but has been present (and in much more brutal forms) among other races throughout history; that there is no conceivable end in sight for our people’s groveling penitence and reparations for Southern slavery; and that Southern slavery was biblically permissible and even beneficial for many blacks – the layers of deceptive foolishness on this canard are then stripped away. Note as well: this doesn’t even touch on the fact that non-whites have committed grave atrocities against whites as well, such as the ongoing Boer genocide.
For more reading, please see “Slavery: Its Morality, History, and Implications for Race Relations in America” as well as “Dabney on Sunday” posts on Southern slavery and the African slave trade. The article “Michael Horton Attacks Dabney, Thornwell, and the South” more fully expounds upon the morality of Southern slavery, vindicating it from the best objections. Please also see “White Genocide in South Africa: A Holistic Analysis” to learn more of the tragedy of Boer genocide.
8. So you’re saying that we ought to love other races as we tell them to live in another land? How can you love on people and share the gospel with them if you want them to live elsewhere?
Imagine this question on a smaller scale: other families have been residing in your household for a period of time, benefiting from your gospel instruction and general hospitality. But their time has come to live in self-sufficiency within their own households, as God designed families to live, no longer to be infringing upon your accommodations. Would it be hateful of you to emphasize your family’s property rights and encourage them to depart? Of course not. But this same principle, extended unto national property rights, is precisely what we advocate. God has not designed all the peoples of the earth to live in a single country (which is imperialistic), but has rather designed us to live among our own; we should seek to reside in our own nations. Other peoples may consequently not receive the same frequency or quality of evangelism and biblical teaching as if they lived within our borders, but an analogous reduction in material and spiritual benefits would occur with families departing from another’s household. Today, technology can aid our relations and evangelical advancements with other nations despite geographical separation, though such technology has largely been abused, tragically, to erase all boundaries.
The proper conclusion to draw from this is that seeking others’ salvific welfare through evangelism is but one moral goal of ours, one moral good which needs to be weighed among others with practical wisdom. Sometimes familial property rights might require a reduction in evangelism, and sometimes national property rights might do the same. Yet, far from decreasing the efficacy of our evangelistic efforts, this concern for godly moral balance actually has a tendency to increase piety and holiness, since it establishes the precise order which God has ordained for the propagating and flourishing of true religion (Acts 17:26-27). The alternative to this is a denial of individual and corporate property rights, which, if done in the name of the gospel, is the blasphemy of baptized communism.
Moreover, that we should have a long-term and large-scale goal of ethnonationalist separation does not entail that any and all means are permissible in seeking out this goal. To state the obvious: ethnonationalism does not require some warlike, forcible removal of people who have resided in a region for an extended time. The objective of national separation is regulated by the biblical precepts of charity and mercy.
For more reading, please see “Alienism and Marxism in Complete Agreement” and “Multiculturalism Is Communism,” which both show how the multiculturalist’s denial of white self-determination is at root communist, a denial of corporate property rights. Also see “A Response to Dr. Moore’s Opinions on Immigration and Race,” wherein he fallaciously argues that open borders are requisite unto true evangelism. A future article will also speak more to the practical implications of implementing ethnonationalism.
9. You act as if blacks and other non-whites pose some sort of danger to whites, as if whites are being oppressed. But you can’t expect me to really believe that, can you?
We do not intend to convey that whites are currently being rounded up and shot on a widespread scale, but there currently is a wide and deep suppression of whites in manifold ways. The logical end of this suppression – and even the intended end – is the overtly violent oppression of whites which we can already witness in such places as Rhodesia and South Africa. Since a constitutive element of this suppression is the reactionary scoffing anyone has against the idea that whites could be suppressed in any way, the problem continues unsolved and unhindered. Thus, abandon any biased emotional reaction you may have, and consider the evidence.
Demographically, “diversity” is proposed as righteous only for white countries, and any actions taken to increase white influence are decried as intolerably “racist.” If any white person expresses any sort of concern for low white birthrates, it’s a textbook example of “white supremacy.” The preservation of one’s culture and ethnic basis through restrictive immigration is honorable for non-white nations, but not for white nations. As the phrase goes, “Africa for Africans, Asia for Asians, white countries for everybody” – and add “Israel for Jews” to that list, too. Financially, an enormous amount of white wealth is redistributed to support non-white welfare, and quality white work is displaced by affirmative action and cheap third-world labor. Non-whites get millions of dollars in scholarships just for being non-white, only to receive special preferences in hiring practices later. Culturally, white identity is suppressed no matter where you look: in the media, in the schools, in the churches, and everywhere else. Black-on-white crimes are perpetrated by raceless “youths,” while white-on-black crimes of lesser magnitude become national sensations. (Imagine if the races were reversed in the ghastly Christian-Newsom murders.) White culture is endlessly degraded (e.g. Django Unchained), with historically white characters even being replaced by blacks (e.g. Idris Elba in Thor) and blacks endlessly lauded and praised (e.g. the NFL, the NBA, and rap). Agenda advertising on billboards and in television ads inevitably displays handpicked diversity in all settings, even ones dominated by white males (e.g. engineering). A special month of observance is celebrated for blacks, Jews, Asians, Hispanics, American Indians, and even sexual perverts, but any notion of a white history month is invoked only as a “racist” joke. Organizations and student unions for non-whites are treated as healthy expressions of racial solidarity, but any White Student Union that rears its ugly head is demonized and rebuked. The church pulpits exhort with maudlin sentimentalism that congregants ought to constantly engage in “racial reconciliation,” which involves endless repentance and white guilt for nothing more than believing that race is real. And these examples are merely the tip of the iceberg.
The logical end of these various measures is genocide. What happens if a country has open borders, if the native population’s wealth is transferred away, if natives are not given proper justice when they are brutalized, if miscegenation is strongly encouraged (refusal to intermarry being “hate”), and if natives are treated as “racist” scum simply for protesting their own dispossession? If these are not the harbingers of open and overt hatred and violence, what would be?
For more reading, please see “The Afrikaner Struggle for Survival as an Ethnic Minority in South Africa: Part II – Contemporary Challenges” and “The Suppression of White Farmers in South Africa” to see white oppression in South Africa. Further, please see “Dispossessed” and “A New Country” to see how whites are suppressed regarding demographics, “Affirmative Action Is Great… (Just Not in Sports)” to see how whites are suppressed regarding academics and employment, “Injustice” to see how whites are suppressed regarding crime, and “A Queer Month” to be utterly baffled. Examples of white suppression in the church can be found in “On Being White and Reformed” and “The Cultural Marxist Imagery of the Modern Church.”
10. Look, the blacks I know don’t seem to fit into this racist picture you’re presenting, as if blacks were some sort of evil, savage horde. Why should I believe your hateful words about them?
Suppose there is unbreakable evidence that young black males commit substantially more crime than other races do, independently of socioeconomic and religious factors, and then suppose that you know a number of young black males who do not fit that mold. The proper conclusion to draw would be not that those racial crime statistics must be wrong, but that these black gentlemen are the exceptions to the rule. This is the very nature of statistics and generalizations (i.e. stereotypes): they guide our thoughts and our practical interactions, and they are perfectly compatible with exceptional outliers. Nearly all thought, to be coherent and practical, requires stereotyping different populations, that is, making generalizations about them; and if these generalizations are true, then believing in them and acting properly upon them cannot be sinful. Most race-denying whites do understand this anyway, since you’ll rarely find them lining up to reside in Detroit, East St. Louis, Baltimore, or any other crime-ridden black area. They steer clear of the “bad parts of the town” and the “bad neighborhoods,” but scorn you if you explain what exactly makes those places so bad.
For more reading, please see “A Tale of Two Cities,” which explains how crime and community health are worse in black Christian cities than in white atheistic ones, and “The Color of Crime,” which outlines more general crime statistics by race.
11. This site just seems so angry and hateful. Why don’t you better show the unconditional love of Christ in your lives?
Today, Christians can say in the most delicate and gentle way possible that sodomy is a sin, and they will still be distorted and slandered as hateful bigots. It is the same, though to a greater degree, with the idol of racial egalitarianism. Articles which straightforwardly present the kinist viewpoint are maligned as hateful, because antiracists know no other way to psychologically cope with it; yet no careful and sincere reader of our writings can dutifully conclude that they are vehicles of thoughtless hate. Rather, accusations of hate are the sinful rationalizations of effeminate emotional reactions that refuse to deal with the hard evidence.
Usually, these non-rational accusations of meanness stem from an unduly high concern for the feelings of non-whites. Even if a black man has just tortured, mutilated, and raped an elderly white woman, antiracists will become far more upset with anyone who, in his expression of justified moral outrage, calls the black rapist a nigger. Indeed, the word “nigger” is held in far higher esteem among white antiracists than the name of the Lord Jesus Christ – most certainly a violation of the third commandment, which requires us to hold God’s name in supreme eminence and other moral concerns with proportionately less weight. Due to the moral disorderliness of the average antiracist mind, accusations of “anger,” “hate,” and “bigotry” will spontaneously emanate whenever the name of non-whites is not held in supreme regard. But truth requires us to hold God, who is Truth itself, in highest esteem, speaking the truth about our neighbors and interpreting them in a positive light.
For more reading, please see “On Being Offended,” which shows how antiracists are far too concerned with non-whites’ and their own feelings than with their people’s objective well-being. Moreover, see both “Hate the Sin and Hate the Sinner” and “Biblical Love and Hatred Harmonized” to understand the biblically sanctioned instances when hate is permissible, namely, in the face of egregious evil.
12. You say you’re opposed to “interracial” marriage and “racial” integration. Why do you hate other races so much?
To believe that two people should not marry is not to hate either of them. Grandsons who believe they should not marry their grandmothers do not thereby hate their grandmothers, and anyone who believes that sodomite marriage is wrong does not thereby hate sodomites, anti-“homophobic” propaganda notwithstanding. We simply believe that God has designed us to live among our own people, and thus we question the moral propriety of interracial marriage and racial integration – no hatred involved at all.
For more reading, please see “On Interracial Marriage: The Moral Status of Miscegenation” and “A Biblical Defense of Ethno-Nationalism.”
13. Do all of you believe interracial marriage is a sin?
No, not all of us. Kinism should simply be understood as the view that, from the Christian perspective, race is real and important as a creation of God. Some kinists believe that interracial marriage is not a wise idea, while others go further, believing it is a sin. The former can be called “weak kinists”; the latter “strong kinists.”
For more reading, please see “Christian Ethics and Interracial Marriage, Part 1: Preliminary Definitions,” which outlines this distinction more.
14. For all your sophisticated arguments, I simply don’t see anything in the Bible that talks about “race.” Why do you try to add to God’s Word?
The reality of race is taught in the Bible, if races are properly understood as consisting of very large extended families. (See #17 below.) But irrespective of this knowledge, we should understand that God has revealed Himself not only in Scripture but also in nature, and it is His prerogative to reveal what He wishes in each mode. Though we see good reason in Scripture to believe that race and nationhood are God-created distinctions which ought to be preserved, nevertheless a great deal of our knowledge of the subjects can come from an analysis of the created order; indeed, we could know with moral certainty that races exist even if the Bible never addressed the topic. Deriving a knowledge of these issues from natural revelation is as much “adding to God’s Word” as is determining the nutritional value of various foods.
For more reading, please see “The Folly of Biblicism,” which further expounds upon the doctrines of natural and supernatural revelation.
15. Maybe the Bible teaches that there are separate “races,” but certainly it says nothing against “interracial” marriage. Why do you try to add to God’s Word?
This is the precise objection made by weak kinists (who see interracial marriage as unwise) against strong kinists (who see it as sinful); they do not see this objection as against all kinism, but merely as an argument “within the camp.” The general argument which strong kinists will make in response is that the Bible does not need to directly address the topic for a moral conclusion to justly be drawn from it (such as with cannibalism or suicide), and/or that the biblical teaching on ethnonationalism, a doctrine concerning our political and social organization, has strong moral implications on our domestic life and marriage.
On the other hand, if someone demands a Bible verse to prove that interracial marriage is unwise, as the weak kinist maintains, then he is simply confusing the purposes of natural and supernatural revelation. Can he provide us with a Bible verse explaining why sending a teenage male to evangelize in a strip club is unwise?
For more reading (beyond the introductory article on miscegenation), please wait patiently for a future article on the subject.
16. The Bible says that we all are made from one blood, descended from Adam. How, then, can there be different “races”?
Note that this passage in Acts 17 also states how God has established national boundaries for His good reasons, that men might seek Him and find Him. The exact verse which states our common unity in Adam likewise sanctions the existence of national distinctions; it proves that monogenism (common descent) is consistent with national and racial realism. Yet this very passage will often be cited as evidence for the opposite conclusion: that due to our common descent, there cannot be any other racial categories within mankind. Besides contradicting Scripture, this is as silly as believing that the common ancestry of all dogs to the two canines on Noah’s ark entails that separate dog breeds don’t really exist.
17. But if there’s only one race, the human race, then how can we also be part of different “races”?
The word “race” can have different meanings in different contexts. It is not incorrect to say that all humans belong to the singular “race of Adam,” but neither is it incorrect to speak of smaller races deriving from progenitors downstream the human “family tree,” such as Israelites and Moabites. We can also distinguish the races of Frenchmen and Germans, or we could lump them into a continental category to distinguish between the races of Europeans and Africans, just as we could lump those two together to distinguish the human race from some sentient alien race. Depending on the context and purpose for which the term is being employed, the word “race” can legitimately refer to different levels of genetic nearness without contradicting the racial unity we share in our common father, Adam. The term can refer to different contiguous sections of the family tree of all of mankind. As we use the term, however, and as it is most commonly employed in contemporary society, races are portions of the human family tree demarcated at a more-or-less continental level of geographic separation. There may be further combining or dividing of racial categories from that point, but this does not outlaw the categories themselves. Such fuzziness belongs to all genealogical categories of extended families, but who would deny that extended families exist?
For more reading, please see Steve Sailer’s FAQ on race, where he further explains how races are nothing more than extended families. (Note that we heavily disagree with his evolutionism and “citizenism,” both being denials of biblical principles.) Please also see “A Proposed Biblical Model for Racial Origins” for a discussion of how races came to be.
18. If you think “race” is real, why don’t you go ahead and tell me what exactly distinguishes a “white” from a “black”? How many “races” are there, anyway?
Depending on the particular context of the question and the purpose for which you are determining where racial demarcations exist, you can get different answers. But this does not mean that race is meaningless or nonexistent, as that would be a textbook instance of the Loki’s wager fallacy: that any imprecision of boundaries invalidates the categories’ existence. (Where’s the precise line between sea and shore?) Besides, we do the exact same thing with extended family. If someone asks who is part of your family in the context of who is attending Thanksgiving dinner, you might answer with your grandparents, cousins, aunts and uncles, siblings, and so on. But if someone asks in the context of whom you will send Christmas cards, your answer will be broader. You will select a differently-sized chunk of the human family tree when pinpointing who is your “extended family” in different contexts. The same goes for race. Since it deals with different segments of the human family tree, its boundaries will necessarily be somewhat fuzzy and even context-dependent, but this is far from indicating its nonexistence.
Again, questions in this vein are covered in Steve Sailer’s FAQ on race, from which I borrowed my examples.
19. You just said twice that race is a fuzzy category! Racial boundaries are constantly changing through history – so how can you make absolute, fixed moral claims on it?
As with question #15 above, this is an in-house disagreement between weak kinists, who hold that interracial marriage is unwise, and strong kinists, who hold it is sinful. If the argument is successful, then it follows merely that weak kinism is the truth, in which case we still ought to believe in race’s reality and other kinist tenets.
Against this argument based on racial fuzziness, however, strong kinists would generally respond that morality is not inconsistent with fuzziness or degrees. If a man wishes to give money to help someone in need, it is not usually clear exactly how much he ought to give; his determination of a charitable contribution will depend on the objective contextual factors. Yet we still understand that his choice of donation is a moral consideration: it would be the sin of squandering or niggardliness, respectively, if he gave too much or too little. The same can be applied to other virtues; e.g., the virtue of courage mediates the vices of cowardice and recklessness, even though codifying which actions are courageous in all sorts of different situations can be quite difficult. Choosing the golden mean for these virtues is necessarily a contextual matter of gradation and fuzziness, but that does not make them by nature any less moral.
To apply this closer to marriage, many people naturally understand that marriages across wide age gaps are deficient in some way. Independent of the resultant practical consequences, there is something “just wrong” about the union of an eighty-year-old male with an eighteen-year-old female. A moral boundary has been crossed. But where exactly does this boundary lie? The answer is fuzzy, but that doesn’t make the question any less moral. The same considerations can apply to the morality of race and nationhood: perhaps there are fuzzy boundaries concerning extended families, nations, and races, but it does not follow that there can be no objective moral claims against exogamy past a certain obvious boundary like race.
For more reading, please wait patiently for a future article on the subject.
20. Do you believe that non-whites can be saved, or does only the “master race” have a chance of salvation?
We fervently hold that non-whites can be saved by the gospel, for they are also created in the image of God as descendants of Adam who can be redeemed through faith in the second Adam, Jesus Christ. (This also means, by the way, that belief in kinism is not itself essential unto salvation; we are justified by faith alone and then sanctified in accord with God’s moral law, which includes considerations of race.) The ideology called Christian Identity holds that non-whites are not descendants of Adam, and most of its variants hold that non-whites therefore cannot be recipients of salvation. Such an ideology is a rank heresy, no better than Judaism for whites.
For more reading, see “Sola Gratia: A Refutation of Christian Identity’s Dual Seedline Theory.” Also see “Trinitarian Theology and Kinism, Part 2: The Imago Dei,” which discusses the doctrine of the imago Dei and addresses the anti-kinist slander that some races do not bear the image of God.
21. Whoa, “Judaism for whites”?! Are you some kind of neo-Nazi anti-Semite?
The reason that Christian Identity can rightly be described as “Judaism for whites” is because of the Talmudic doctrines that utterly denigrate and degrade Gentiles as subhuman creatures. You won’t see any criticisms of Judaism or Zionism at your local Christian bookstores (nowhere near as much as you’ll see Islam criticized), but this is truly what the Talmud teaches. Yet, just as with the terms “racist” and “white supremacist,” epithets like “neo-Nazi” and “anti-Semite” are also thrown around vaguely and wildly. If the term “anti-Semite” denotes some hatred of Jews simply because of their ethnicity, then it would truly be a sin, but an inapplicable accusation; yet if it denotes opposition to the religion of Judaism and the politics of Zionism, then it is not a sin in the first place.
For more information, please listen to this Tribal Theocrat podcast on Judaism and Talmudism with Mickey Henry.
22. But what about Nazi Germany and the Holocaust?
We view Nazism as a neo-pagan reaction to the excesses of Marxism. Weimar Germany was a spiritual and moral hellhole, and the rise of Nazism can be blamed on the failure of the conservative elements in society, including many Christians, to resist the cultural Marxists. If men like Claus von Stauffenberg – a conservative Christian and German aristocrat whose opposition to Hitler was more complex than is commonly granted – had muscularly addressed the problems of the Weimar Republic before the rise of Nazism, the people might not have been driven to desperation. As Kinists who support Christian liberty, we certainly oppose the totalitarian state represented by Nazism, including its unjust treatment of various groups, its dogmatic support of public education, and other things. We can admire certain aspects of the Nazi state, such as its ending of abortion in Germany and its resistance to the unjust Treaty of Versailles, even as we condemn its immoral excesses.
Of course, any accusation of “neo-Nazism” is meant to evoke hellish conceptions of the “Holocaust.” Without taking an official position on Holocaust or WWII revisionism, F&H supports free and open debate on the subject. We do believe that, even if the mainstream account of Nazi atrocities is largely correct, these crimes pale in comparison to the crimes committed by the Soviet, Chinese, and other communist states, whose victims number over 100 million. They are also overshadowed by the legacy of abortion, where over 50 million children have been murdered in the U.S. alone. Moreover, Holocaust education in our public schools is excessive and largely designed to pin the blame on the historical Christianity of the German people while elevating an event in WWII over Calvary as the fulcrum of history, insulating a prominent anti-Christian group from contemporary criticism lest one be accused of “anti-Semitism.” The use of inappropriate ghoulish imagery of naked dead bodies with vulnerable, impressionable young children is specifically designed to achieve a permanent emotional imprint for propaganda purposes. The silence of the public schools on the larger crimes of communists and Marxists, including legalized abortion, demonstrates the hollowness of most Holocaust education today.
For more information, please see this book review of Elie Wiesel’s Night, as well as “The Blasphemy of Judeo-Christianity and the Heresy of the Holocaust.”
23. But Christianity came from Judaism, and we share a Judeo-Christian moral heritage!
It is heinously misleading to refer to the religion of the Old Testament saints and the religion of modern-day Jews with the same label of “Judaism.” Modern Judaism is Talmudism, the religion of the Pharisees. Jesus excoriated the Pharisees for their slavish devotion to man-made tradition (Matt. 15:3-9) and denied that they truly believed in Moses’s teachings (John 5:46). In response, these same Pharisees, perverters of the pure Old Testament religion of proto-Christianity, only hardened their hearts further. They executed the Son of God and justified themselves with their ungodly traditions. Their Pharisaic traditions were then codified and amplified over time, giving rise to the Talmud as the central authority of modern Judaism. The greatest height of folly would be to suppose that such a Talmudic religion is in any way compatible with Christianity, to posit some sort of common moral heritage between us.
For more reading, please see “Ten Christian Zionist Myths.”
24. How can you reconcile your views with Galatians 3:28, which teaches that in Christ there is neither Jew nor Gentile?
Galatians 3:28 teaches that common faith in Christ provides spiritual unity spanning across otherwise meaningful categories of life. Men and women are very different, as are slaves and freemen, but despite these real and abiding differences, all can still be united by faith in Christ. The verse therefore supports racial realism, explaining how the category of nationhood (along with race), though a true, God-created reality, is yet transcended by our spiritual unity in Christ. Moreover, if the verse is somehow interpreted as undoing these categories, then we should likewise treat all gender distinctions as unreal: feminism and sodomy would become authorized.
For more reading, please see “There Is No Male and Female,” and “Christian Ethics and Interracial Marriage, Part 5: Miscegenation, Sodomy, and the Coherence of Nature-Hating Egalitarianism,” which both outline the powerful connections between gender egalitarianism and racial egalitarianism. “Christian Persecution in South Africa” shows how the pro-sodomitic agenda is part of the same egalitarian assault on Christianity.
25. You refer to Israel’s laws from the Old Testament in defense of your ideas on “race.” But didn’t those laws deal merely with religious separation from other nations?
The Old Testament prohibitions on intermingling with foreign nations indeed had the explicit reason given of religious purity, but it does not follow that the essence of the prohibition consisted entirely in religious separation. Consider how a similar command could be given against fornication or sodomy: “do not engage in these acts, for you are a holy people unto the Lord.” The accompanying principle of religious purity would not imply at all that such sexual sins are prohibited solely because the actions, by their nature, involve religious admixture. But we contend it is the same with Israel’s laws. Their laws forbade intermarriage with other nations, not with unbelievers in the abstract, and this requires us to understand more comprehensively how the biblical doctrine of nations might serve as a principle of moral motivation, or “general equity,” underlying the legislation. (We also should understand why there were tribal marital restrictions within Israel, as in Numbers 36.) No doubt these laws had as their primary purpose the insulation of Israelite true religion from the surrounding idolatries, and no doubt this law typologically foresignified the Christian church’s ethical separation from worldly evils, but this is all harmonious with, even supportive of, a parallel moral prohibition against racial intermarriage as such.
For more reading, please wait patiently for a future article on the subject.
26. Even if Old Testament laws somehow support your views on “race,” didn’t Jesus fulfill those laws?
We contend that the “general equity” of Old Testament laws supports our beliefs on race and nationhood, which means there are moral commandments governing those categories, just as moral commandments govern sexuality and gender roles. But by definition, the moral law cannot be abrogated, in which case any “fulfillment” of such laws by Jesus (e.g. as a covenant of works) still would be consistent with our ongoing obligation unto the moral law today. The ceremonial law, on the other hand, is a “positive law” which is now abolished; it was posited only for a particular people and time with the purpose of pointing forward to Christ’s sacrifice. Now that Christ has already accomplished His salvific work, they no longer serve their appointed purpose and are thereby fulfilled. By contrast, the principles of national organization which we advocate are part of God’s ethnic-social design of mankind for the flourishing of true religion and the reduction of hostility; they are therefore moral in nature and not subject to abrogation.
For more reading, please see “Christian Ethics and Interracial Marriage, Part 3: Important Distinctions,” which further explains the distinction between moral and positive law.
27. The Bible contains some really obvious cases of “interracial” marriage, such as Moses with his Ethiopian wife and Ruth with Boaz. How do you deal with those?
In the end, these alleged cases are simply not convincing or obvious in the least. Proving whether they were truly interracial is rather difficult, as is proving whether Scripture morally countenances them. The putative cases of racial intermarriage in Scripture should generally be treated in the same way as examples of polygamy are oft treated: whatever the examples teach, they do not teach the action’s general moral permissibility, and such examples ought not to be considered as the main arena of debate for the subject.
For more reading, please see “Divorce, Miscegenation, and Polygamy: A Comparative Approach to Their Morality.” Part two of the series explains a putative case of intermarriage in Deut. 21. Further, this article addresses Moses’s Ethiopian wife, and this article addresses Ruth and Boaz and the aforementioned example from Deut. 21.
28. 1 Corinthians 7:39 says we are free to marry anyone else as long as he or she is a Christian. How can you then restrict marriage based on “race”?
The verse specifically says that a widow is free to marry whom she wishes “only in the Lord.” But does this mean merely that the spouse must be Christian? Can brothers marry their Christian sisters? Can grandsons marry their Christian grandmothers (or grandfathers!)? Can a fourteen-year-old male marry an eighty-year-old woman so long as they’re both Christians? Is it perfectly permissible to have a Christian marriage across a language barrier? Of course not. To say that we are free to marry “only in the Lord” does not mean that a credible profession of faith is the sole moral criterion for marital suitability. The phrase must mean something more like “according to God’s law”: we are to be concerned foremost with religious compatibility, but also with all the other moral components of marital harmony embedded in God’s law. This leaves the question open of what moral bearing race might have upon our choice of marriage partners.
29. Do you believe interracial married couples should divorce?
We do not, although some within the kinist camp (who can be labeled as “stronger kinists”) do so believe. They would see interracial unions as analogous to sodomite unions – not even being deficient marriages, but lacking the essence of marriage altogether. They would adduce Ezra and Nehemiah for their main argument, since the prophets commanded Israel to separate themselves from their foreign wives and children (Ezra 10:11-12; Neh. 13:1-3). Though we reject the modern church’s insistence that Ezra and Nehemiah were dealing with a solely religious, non-ethnic separation, we do not affirm that the pattern of separation is obligatory (or permissible) in just any case of miscegenation. This was a special case for Israel where a positive law was enacted and the people covenanted with God not to intermarry with outside peoples. Perhaps a similar case of legislation and covenanting can occur in the future which would then forbid particular intermarriages from ever achieving the status of marriage, but without those circumstances arising, it would be an improper application – and unconscionable – to demand that all mixed families separate.
For more reading, please see “Further Commentary on the Mamzer of Deuteronomy 23,” which provides commentary on the annulments in Ezra and Nehemiah as they relate to the exegesis of the Hebrew term mamzer.
30. I’m biracial. Do you think I’m cursed or something? Who do you expect me to marry?
Of course you’re not cursed. We would not affirm that being born into a mixed family, having no direct racial solidarity with your parents or extended family, is a desirable condition, but consider: God promises eunuchs everlasting glory and salvation for their gospel-obedience (Isa. 56:3-5), and the same promise extends to the sons of a foreigner (vv. 6-8). No matter what different conditions in which God’s providence might place us, trusting Him is the key to removing the sin-curse which plagues all of us. As regards marriage, we exhort you to respect and honor God’s design of national distinctions in choosing a suitable spouse. This will vary for different particular cases, but the general principles still apply: besides religious considerations, choose someone with whom you are genetically compatible and with whose family your family can easily integrate.
For more reading, please wait patiently for a future article on the subject.
31. So maybe you can provide some kind of fancy “intellectual” answer to all these questions. Still, I can’t go against my conscience when it reacts so strongly against this awful racism, hatred, and bigotry.
Antiracists are quick to exonerate past heroes of theirs for being “men of their times” when these heroes’ racial views become evident. They understand that one’s beliefs and conscience, though designed by God to lead us toward truth and morality, can nevertheless be perverted towards evil. But if this is granted, then antiracists ought to examine whether their own beliefs and consciences are behaving in accordance with truth and duty, or whether they are benighted “men of their times.” If you teach a child in the government schools over twelve years to view racial egalitarianism as the height of moral and civilizational progress for humanity, and if you constantly train him to believe that anything pro-white is sin, then what would you expect of him besides a faux moral revulsion? It is therefore high time for men to dutifully examine the relevant facts and principles and mold their consciences with truth, not vice versa.
For more reading, please see the article “Assaulting the Zeitgeist,” which outlines how indoctrination deceives sinners to misidentify good and evil.