The Horror! The Horror!
September 7, 2009 
35 Comments
“It’s horrifying to imagine kids being proud to be white,” says Newsweek, whose authors are alarmed that children develop racial consciousness at six months of age, and even liberal parents are doing nothing to rewire their brains. The problem is only with white people, of course. White children should be made to feel guilty to “knock down their glorified view of white people,” while black kids should be built up with “ethnic pride.” Steve Sailer has the best comment on this indoctrination: “I’m sure parents in Stalin’s Soviet Union had similar worries.” The authors of this piece could surely have had a thriving “business peddling advice to kulak parents about how to talk about class so their little ones don’t slip up.” Race-mixers are Communists, and just like feminists and fags, they have declared eternal war on biology. Sadly for them, biology never changes. Their only hope is in propaganda, but how long can this continue if Jewsweek’s circulation has fallen by half in just four years? Let’s help them speed the process.
The Jew York Times has a beef with white kids too: their carbon footprint.
It seems that propaganda has become increasingly unnecessary. Most people now believe whatever their leaders tell them to believe. But propaganda had to be more creative during World War Jew. Here’s an American poster with the message that war is sexy. There were apparently no racial quotas in advertisements back then.
Here’s another that shows how Nazis wanted occupied Holland to view Americans.
The message: What kind of “liberation” is this? We see a naked Miss America pretending to be an Indian, a Jew flag, a Jew clinging to a moneybag, a Negro jazz record, two Negroes in a bird cage dancing the jitterbug, black power, a noose, a criminal with a gun, a ribbon with “world’s most beautiful leg” on a Frankenstein appendage, a bomb destroying a cultural center, and the KKK in support of it all. In short, a tangled mass of violent and degenerate contradictions. Nazis believed Americans to be usurious, warmongering race-mixers. Seventy years later, I don’t think too much would change in this image. The KKK is now irrelevant; perhaps it would have the head of Rush Limbaugh instead. Jazz has been replaced by hip-hop, but it’s still jungle music. The jitterbuggers would be replaced by a mulatto orgy. Another important change for our time: We now have preachers goading the beast forward.
Here’s a similar item from leftists, hot off the press, but it leaves little to the imagination (i.e., it’s not very creative). A perverse sexual act is used to describe those who are opposed to government tyranny. Obviously, they are also shown as wanting to lynch the black president, who has taken the place of King George III.
There comes a point when propaganda takes on a life of its own. “Obama has only been in office for 8 months. In another year he will become the all-time leading Hitler.”
Was Danzig worth 50-60 million white lives? asks Pat Buchanan. The anti-whites have an easy answer: Of course, because it was necessary to free enslaved Jews, just as it was necessary for more than 600,000 white men to perish in the 1860s to free black slaves. The actual reasons for war are forgotten and all that is remembered is the propaganda. We are still plagued by warmongers today. Take Afghanistan, for instance. Any idiot alive during the 1980s could see that the place is a quagmire; not even the Soviets could take it. But Americans believe their war machine has the “world’s most beautiful leg.” And here is Jew Kristol’s brilliant idea for victory: Think of something and do it.
As Buchanan explains, the Brits freely surrendered 7 million Hong Kongese to China, who didn’t want to go, but refused to allow Germany to take Danzig, even though the Danzigers desired it. The reason given is that Hitler’s aggression showed that he wanted to conquer the world. One could more easily believe that Fidel Castro has tried to conquer the world. If Hitler tried to conquer the world, he must have forgotten it when he gave the Slovaks full independence. If Hitler tried to conquer the world:
Why did he spend three years building that hugely expensive Siegfried Line to protect Germany from France?
Why did he start the war with no surface fleet, no troop transports and only 29 oceangoing submarines? How do you conquer the world with a navy that can’t get out of the Baltic Sea?
If Hitler wanted the world, why did he not build strategic bombers, instead of two-engine Dorniers and Heinkels that could not even reach Britain from Germany?
Why did he let the British army go at Dunkirk?
Why did he offer the British peace, twice, after Poland fell, and again after France fell?
Why, when Paris fell, did Hitler not demand the French fleet, as the Allies demanded and got the Kaiser’s fleet?
Why did he not demand bases in French-controlled Syria to attack Suez?
Why did he beg Benito Mussolini not to attack Greece?
Because Hitler wanted to end the war in 1940, almost two years before the trains began to roll to the camps.
The facts have long since been forgotten, and the story is told that Hitler wanted to conquer the world and exterminate the Jews. Germany is “eternally responsible” for WWII, says Chancellor Angela Merkel, which Jews hear as “eternally liable.” These are convenient fictions that serve the purposes of those who write the propaganda, but as Buchanan says, for us, it was “the war that may yet prove the mortal blow to our civilization.”
Here are a couple of the many propaganda and exploitation posters that depict Nazis as monsters who wanted to ravage defenseless women here in America:
After Buchanan’s excellent article was published, the Press Secretary of the National Jewish Democratic Council wrote this as an attempt to censor it, and it was censored at MSNBC. Here are the words he uses to denounce Buchanan: “fascist sympathizer,” “unrepentant rhetoric,” “historical revisionism,” “insensitivity,” “vile fiction,” “racist,” “anti-Semitic,” “anti-Israel,” “anti-immigrant.” And if that doesn’t drive the point home, he pulls out the big guns: “Buchanan has the sort of history that has earned him an entire page on the Anti-Defamation League’s website.” The one thing this Jew will never do is explain, with logic and reason, why Buchanan has misrepresented the facts of history in calling WWII unnecessary. Name-calling is more than sufficient for the Jew, because again, the purpose is propaganda, not to debate and arrive at the truth. If the Jew wins enough people to his side, gets Buchanan kicked off the air, and causes him to lose his syndicated column, he will declare victory.
An example of this is the effort to censor this Spanish publication for so much as interviewing David Irving. Jews are scared to death of Irving, because he knows them inside and out. They would never in a million years attempt to prove that anything he says is false. All they can do is try to silence him. “Outlaw the truth. Then declare the truth tellers outlaws.”
“The notion of the ‘Holocaust’ was built up decades after the event. Until the 1970s it was just a speck of dust on the horizon. The proof is that it doesn’t appear in any of the biographies of the great leaders of the Second World War. But from then on it became fashionable. The Jews turned it into a brand, using the same technique as Goebbels. They invented a slogan…and repeated it ad nauseum.” ~ David Irving, El Mundo, September 6, 2009
“Let us all recognize that we Jews are a distinctive nationality of which every Jew, whatever his country, his station or shade of belief, is necessarily a member.” ~ Supreme Court Jew Louis D. Brandeis
The only country to drop the bomb.
The British someday need to come to terms with the fact that, though they were bombed by Nazis, their leader was a war criminal, and it’s hardly in their best interest now to be singing about killing their fellow endangered Europeans.
The great Willis Carto, on whose broad shoulders my generation stands, saw the light at any early age when he realized that “on virtually every issue—whether it was immigration, foreign policy, economics, taxes, or race relations—the media supported those positions that ran counter to the interests and wishes of the America people.”
Carto saw Jews as advocating the “pollution” of America through miscegenation while at the same time striving to maintain ethnic purity among themselves. Out of fear of miscegenation, Carto also opposed the admission of Alaska and Hawaii as states, fearing Hawaii, for its part, would elect ethnic Japanese who would not support White interests in Congress.
Carto was inspired by Francis Parker Yockey, in whose presence he could “feel history standing aside me.” Sadly, these men became messiahs unto themselves.
From Yockey, Carto drew a lesson that he shared with his rival (and reported enemy) William Pierce, head of the National Alliance. The West, he felt, needed a new faith that would allow a spiritual regeneration.
Kinism exists, in part, to thank these men for sounding the alarm but to remind them that fire is not extinguished with gasoline. Idolatry does not drive out idolatry.
In Greg Johnson’s review of Harold Covington, we find two prevalent and contradictory sentiments held by many white nationalists:
Religion…is not a topic that can be discussed rationally, thus nothing good can come from discussing it. Therefore, the topic should be avoided. Furthermore, the movement must take special care not to be, or to appear to be, opposed to the religion of the majority of whites: Christianity.
There is no such thing as neutrality. WNs recognize this clearly when it comes to race, because we have in our country today official policies that, on paper, guarantee impartiality for all groups of people. But we all know how these policies work out in practice; they result in the decimation of the white stock. There is no such thing as neutrality! We hear this from Jared Taylor all the time, and he’s right. He warns that if whites neuter themselves (i.e., embrace neutrality), the foreigners who have overwhelmed us will continue to pursue their own interests. They know that “neutrality” is suicide, just as our parasitical enemies know that whites are keen to believe in it due to their natural inclinations towards fairness and even-handedness.
Well, when it comes to the one true faith of our ancestors, WNs lose their grip, mainly because many of them have an imaginary view of God that is basically Nietzschean. This is probably better than imagining God to be nothing more than a literary device, a sort of ghost in the machine (“deus ex machina“), but false nonetheless. The same rule applies: there is no such thing as neutrality. Invent a government that enthrones “reason” instead of God, and in no time at all everyone will be killing each other. How “rational” is that? How “rational” is it to have no standard for reason? And why is this so hard to understand? Our own government has chosen to enthrone something called “the people” over God, and in a very short time we’ve come to understand two things without a doubt: 1) There is no “people” at all that anyone could identify with this bastard empire, only a set of lifeless propositions; 2) Our people are on a bullet train to extinction. Would theocracy really have been so bad? Would an acknowledgement that our lives, liberty, and sacred honor come from God rather than ourselves really have been so terrible? Would following God’s law really have been such an inconvenience? Has anyone ever suggested a better alternative and proved it in practice? You see the picture of Cornelius Van Til up there in the header of this page. Let him teach you a few things about neutrality. Jesus tells us in Matthew 12:30, “He who is not with me is against me, and he who does not gather with me scatters.” No neutrality. The West used to understand this very well, and unless we learn it again fast, there will never again be a white nation on earth. We will be scattered, just as our Lord said.
Wikipedia has a very long entry on the word “racism,” but nowhere in the abundance of words does one find that a Communist, Leon Trotsky, was its inventor. You know something is fishy when the definition page for a word so well-known and used so often has a big exclamation point at the top declaring that the “article contains weasel words, vague phrasing that often accompanies biased or unverifiable information.” As if anyone could define racism without weasel words.
This is their best stab at a definition:
Racism is the belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race.
Or at least, it would be the definition, if race actually existed, which it doesn’t, according to these people. I don’t know anyone who denies that behavior and aptitude are caused by some combination of nature and nurture. According to this definition, if you dare to tip the scales more than 50% in the direction of nature, you have entered the realm of the r-word. How can anyone take this nonsense seriously? As for the second part, I would say I know quite a few of these dreaded racists, and I honestly don’t know of a single one who believes that one race has an “inherent superiority” across the board. Instead, they recognize that race A is better than race B at some things, and race B is better than race A at others. I refer to averages, of course. I can say, however, that they uniformly reject the Communist program of stealing from race A to give to race B to make race B more like race A. They know that this is why race B finds the racism industry useful in the first place.
Here is how you know you’re a racist:
According to the Oxford English Dictionary, racism is a belief or ideology that all members of each racial group possess characteristics or abilities specific to that race, especially to distinguish it as being either superior or inferior to another racial group or racial groups. The Merriam-Webster’s Dictionary defines racism as a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular racial group, and that it is also the prejudice based on such a belief. The Macquarie Dictionary defines racism as: “the belief that human races have distinctive characteristics which determine their respective cultures, usually involving the idea that one’s own race is superior and has the right to rule or dominate others.”
In other words, you’re a racist if you so much as doubt that all races have equal faculties on average, or believe that genes influence personal characteristics other than physical, and by extension culture as well. We plead guilty on all counts. And yes, we wish for our own people to have exclusive rights in their own countries that strangers do not share. This is now called “supremacism” but it used to be called nationhood, and it’s thoroughly biblical.
It won’t surprise you that racism, as defined by the wiki-wackos, is always a bad thing. (If in doubt, just ask the weasel in the pulpit of your church, and please, don’t confuse him with logic.) Nothing about the productive bonds of kinship which lead to ethnic and national unity to be found here, no sir! Here are the manifestations of ol’ debbil racism, according to those who are blessed with the gift of Definition:
Blood libel · Ethnic cleansing · Ethnocide · Gendercide · Genocide · Hate crime · Hate speech · Lynching · Paternalism · Pogrom · Police brutality · Racial profiling · Race war · Religious persecution · Slavery · Prejudice · Discrimination · Aryanism · Hate groups · Ku Klux Klan · Neo-Nazism · American Nazi Party · South African National Party · Supremacism · Segregation · Apartheid · Redlining · Internment · Colorism · Cronyism · Ethnocentrism · Genism · Gynocentrism · Eurocentrism · Linguicism · Nepotism · Triumphalism · Bigotry · Diversity · Oppression · Eugenics
After reading that, I feel like I fall somewhere between Stalin and Genghis Khan on the charm meter. Oh, wretched honky that I am! Who will deliver me from this skin of white? (Romans 7:24) If only I had read dictionaries written by Harvard graduates before helping to strengthen what remains. Momma tried. Lord knows Momma tried!
Let’s not even talk about how black illnesses are caused by white racism.
Heckling a black baseball player is now considered racism, even if no racial slurs are used.
Billy Graham gets a taste of the world he has helped to create. Perhaps Graham, “like Macbeth, thought he could use the devil for his own ends and then opt out of the devil’s service.”
If wedding announcements were truthful.
“The face of America.” (I count only one man in the audience.)
Wildlife at the watering hole.
You know how the Duke rape hoax was huge news, because finally, some Great White Defendants had been found. In the first 15 days, there were 1,056 stories, and in the next few weeks another 1,367. Then it all unraveled, and professional gossips like Nancy Grace went in search of the next lives to destroy. If you can stomach it, read about the current Duke rape case. “Does anyone doubt that if a prominent straight man at Duke University had adopted a young black girl and then sexually abused her and broadcast the abuse over the Internet, it would not be big news?” Number of news stories published in the first 15 days following Lombard’s arrest: 19, most of them cursory and in small, local newspapers. Fags enjoy the same Jew-privileges as non-whites.
The Jew-media is changing its tune about there being no racial carnage during Katrina. Sure there was, they now say, except that it was whites killing blacks. Yeah, that’s the ticket, and they were probably wearing hoods, carrying nooses, and lighting crosses, if they could find any dry ground.
Two more phony hate crimes, here and here.
Great news from Canada, where the thought crime and hate speech law has been declared unconstitutional, thanks to the courage of Marc Lemire. Until Wednesday, this website you’re reading would not have been allowed to exist in Canada. “The CHRA ran roughshod over Canada’s Constitution for 27 years, while our Parliament and judiciary yawned.” Don’t forget that Ernst Zundel was deported to Germany because under this law he was considered “a threat to Canadian national security.” No one will ever be able to restore the years he lost in prison, or the two decades during which he was dragged through the courts. The Canadian Human Rights Tribunal still exists, which is itself an affront to liberty, but this is an excellent first step which we hope to see repeated in Europe. We also hope to see Obama’s Matthew Shepard Hate Crimes Bill go down to defeat. Jews will resist it to the last man, because they hate liberty, and they will see to it that their hate speech is never outlawed.
Marc Lemire compares Canadian Human Rights Section 13(1) to the Spanish Inquisition.
Just when Canadian liberals thought it couldn’t get any worse, a white South African man has been granted refuge there to escape the black villains who have taken over his once-fair country. The ANC has denounced the decision as “racist,” naturally, and the Canadian government is appealing the decision. This is a dangerous precedent to set, according to liberals. As Senator Sam Brownback has said, here in our own Jewish oligarchy, South Africans should not be granted asylum because “those people might bring racism to the United States.” These are the sort of people Alex Linder calls WHINOs (WHites In Name Only). They put the “d-i-e” in “diversity.”
“Like the old woman of the roads, our race is longing, our American people are longing, for a home of their own.” Read this excellent speech by Sam Dickson on the creation of a white ethnostate. When it was delivered at the last AmRen conference, Jew Michael Hart was sitting in front of Sam, listening to the two mentions of his name, and in between the two mentions Sam referred to Jews expelling the native population of Palestine to establish their own ethnostate. Brilliant. You’ll also notice that the anger at town hall meetings is all over the news now, but a year and a half ago, Sam said this:
I would suggest that you attend the next town hall meeting of your local Congressman or Senator. He need not be a liberal, not some crazed Methodist on Marx or a Marxist on meth, like Hillary Clinton. He could be a white Christian Southern conservative Republican Congressman. During the question and answer period, go to the microphone and say: “Congressman, I am concerned about the tide of non-white immigration, and the low white birthrate in this country and around the world. I’m concerned that our race might become extinct.”
And just see the reaction of that Christian, Southern, conservative member of the establishment. See how you will be shouted down by his followers. See how the guard will be instructed to come and take you out of the room, because you have committed an act of hate by suggesting that your race should be anything other than exterminated.
The SPLC considers the keeping of oaths, enforcement of the Constitution, and refusal to obey illegal and immoral actions as… well, I don’t even need to tell you… racist. But the fourth of the Nuremberg Principles, which the American regime used to support, tells us that it is never acceptable to say, “I was just following orders.” One can be liable for war crimes nonetheless.
The SPLC is also credited with the FBI’s mental instability.
The BNP is being forced to accept non-whites as members, but minorities will continue to form caucuses at all levels.
An old Christian cemetery in Manchester is desecrated to make room for a mosque.
In 1916, a liberal named Randolph Bourne expressed the high-minded death-wish that still consumes our people:
America is already the world-federation in miniature, the continent where for the first time in history has been achieved that miracle of hope, the peaceful living side by side, with character substantially preserved, of the most heterogeneous peoples under the sun. Nowhere else has such contiguity been anything but the breeder of misery. Here, notwithstanding our tragic failures of adjustment, the outlines are already too clear not to give us a new vision and a new orientation of the American mind in the world.
American Exceptionalism! The World’s Most Beautiful Leg!
Read The Dispossessed Majority, a free e-book download.
One of Obama’s employees tasked with job creation (presumptuously titled after emperor Julius Caesar) is a self-avowed Communist, and his “green” career meshes perfectly with Communism proper. (On a related note, the mother of black congressman J.C. Watts really did name him after Julius Caesar.) Watch as he tries to shift attention away from black criminality. Keep in mind that this actor supported the Jena 6 and Mumia Abu-Jamal. Now he has been fired.
Zimbabwe can’t feed its prisoners and is therefore releasing them. What do you think it will be like in this country when our currency goes the way of Zimbabwe’s and millions of violent criminals, many of whom should have been executed, are set free?
I got excited when I saw this headline, and then I realized that the other Michael King is already dead. Anyway, it appears that Florida juries don’t screw around the way Tennessee juries do. Florida is also one of only four states that uses an electric chair, Old Sparky. The victim’s family looks very pleased. And once again, the victim in the case is a member of that class of creatures whose beauty is unparalleled in creation: white women.
Blacks still haven’t learned that whole “content of character” thing.
A black woman nearly goes blind from trying to look white.
Naomi Campbell admits that jobs are given to most black models out of pity, and in a recession, advertising companies follow the money, to white women. We are called haters when we say that white women are the gold standard of beauty throughout the world, but when media conglomerates say it too, they are just good capitalists.
Here’s an excellent graphic on the rise and fall of the dollar. Notice the plummeting red line after Jew-usurers began to drain it of value.
The unbelievable power of the sun, brought to you, as usual, by white men. Specifically, by Daryl Chapin, Calvin Fuller, and Gerald Pearson, who invented photovoltaic technology using silicon transistors.
In all the years my associates and I have been selling lemonade on the shoulder of Al Gore’s Information Superhighway, I don’t think I’ve ever read a comment as brilliant as this one by Tim Harris. It gets to the very root of Kinism, in my opinion, and it gives me the very satisfying sensation of having all the ideas floating around in my brain come together like the pieces of a jigsaw puzzle. It would be a mistake to think of Kinism as being merely racial or merely religious. It is about kinship, including the kinship of the Trinity. It shows that “the one and the many” or unity in diversity is the theme of creation. We imperil ourselves if we, as creatures both spiritual and corporeal, focus solely on the covenantal and dismiss the genetic aspects of life. Christ turns it right back around on the Judaizers when He explains that true religion is caring for our widows and orphans, our flesh and blood. Like the Pharisees, the Church of today has neglected the weightier matters of the law, and when we tell them they’re wrong, they call us racists. That’s not too bad; the Pharisees called Jesus far worse.
Tim scores again on Ken Ham. This is turning ugly; pretty soon we’ll have to look away. As for Ham’s so-called scholarship,
Notably absent from a book purporting to be a refutation of racism is a definition of either race or racism. There is the ominous hint that racism is evil, and the assertion that races don’t even exist, but precise definitions—nay, even fuzzy ones—are quite lacking.
Darwinists are racists, says Ham, except when they’re right, and race itself is “of American manufacture,” except for when Nazis add flair to his marketing material. “Within two pages, he both blames evolutionism as being inherently racist, and praises evolutionists for denying racism.” Tim asks, “Does Ham listen to himself talking?”
According to Ham, it is “racist” to believe in the existence of multiple races. This is so ridiculous, observes Tim, that it tars the vast majority of Christians, who have always believed that distinct races have emerged from two original parents, as “racists,” slanderously placing them in league with those who wish to harm other races. This is unconscionable! When will lying preachers ever stop using the Communist, undefinable r-word? Are they so much more absorbed in popular culture than Scripture that they can’t help themselves?
Tim shows that the evolutionists are dishonest, but Ham can’t call them on it because he wants to join them in their lies when they try to disprove the existence of race. The only way for Ham to rescue his theory is to pretend to believe in a “magic time-scale” which offers just enough time to differentiate the “people groups” but not enough time to allow one of these groups to become superior to the others in anything more than a superficial sense. But Ham doesn’t defend this theory at all in his useless book. “If he is going to hang everything on a magic time scale, let him say so plainly.”
And might I make a small request? If Ken Ham and Doug Phillips and the other creationtard “ingrates and prevaricators” could do me a favor and stop putting the word “race” in scare quotes (even “color”!), even as they regularly refer to various “people groups” with distinct characteristics, I would appreciate it ever so much. Just because they say they prefer to use the term “people groups” rather than “races” doesn’t make them any less foppish. We prefer to use shorter and more sensible words, and we prefer not to use words invented by Communists which have contradictory meanings.
We’ve written several times about Tim Martin and Jeff Vaughn’s book, Beyond Creation Science. (Martin is a former student of Ken Gentry. He also studied at Christ College, where Michael Butler is dean.) Martin and Vaughn argue that the flood of Genesis was regional and covenantal, not universal, in purpose and extent; that Adam was the first covenantal man, not the first physical man; that the first chapters of Genesis are about the creation of the covenant, not the creation of the universe. We don’t agree with all of this, but it’s very interesting. This is a very good interview [Play] [Play] in which Martin explains his theory of “covenantal creationism.” Here is another good interview on the Gary DeMar show. It is argued that a regional/covenantal flood requires the preterist/old-earth view of Adam’s fall. Even Babel was a local, covenantal judgment, seeing as how Nimrod went on to build eight more cities afterwards. A similar understanding is applied to Christ’s death and resurrection: He did not sacrifice Himself for all (this is known as the doctrine of Limited Atonement); He did it among His local, covenantal people; and the judgment poured out on Jerusalem a generation later was local, not universal.
I think one of the most interesting aspects of this theory is that when young-universe creationists are forced to explain the history of matter in the span of 6,000 years, a dispensationalism of sorts is unavoidable. In other words, they believe that God’s colossal judgments have moved the world from one catastrophic age to the next. They conclude that Noah’s flood must have permanently altered the globe, miraculously giving it an appearance of old age. They believe that dinosaurs went extinct immediately after the flood, even though God had inexplicably commanded (some of?) them to board the ark. They are forced into the belief that the flood was followed by an extremely brief period of hyper-evolution and natural selection. The races of men mutated so rapidly, YUCs say, that according to evidence from ancient Egypt, they almost immediately assumed the appearance they retain even today. Likewise, at the end of the ages, they believe that a literal new heaven and a literal new earth will replace the old. Preterists, by contrast, see no evidence, biblically or scientifically, that God has ever radically altered His creation. Especially not consistent preterists, Martin would say.
But this is where a glaring problem arises. Martin’s complete theory requires full preterism, or what is often called hyper-preterism, a heresy that denies the future, bodily resurrection of all, believers and unbelievers alike, and a bodily return of Christ at the end of the ages. Martin believes the resurrection to be merely spiritual, not physical as well, and so death continues forever, even though we are now in the eternal period of the “new heavens and new earth.”
In the comments of the previous thread, we were discussing Christian Identity and British Israelism, and the good and bad points made by both. On one hand, if Noah’s flood was regional rather than global, knowing whether white Europeans came from Japheth or Shem seems even less important. But on the other hand, it seems that Martin’s view actually fits warmly with Christian Identity’s covenantal focus on a particular race.
Dee Dee Warren and others have called for Gary DeMar to remove the Martin interview from his archives. He has removed it, but along with many others, which I don’t think has to do with Martin himself. As DeMar says at the start of the interview, no Christian should want to censor differing views. But this is exactly what is happening to the book. Kinists are very familiar with the game plan. I haven’t read the book yet, but I hope to read it soon, and I hope it generates a lot of debate.
I’ve been learning some sweet dance moves by watching this video of Brother Franklin, and I’m going to visit a liberal white church on Sunday to show off, right in the middle of the offering. I might even do a backflip or two, just to show them what the Holy Spirit is all about. I’ll probably horrify the bluehairs, but they need to reap the benefits of their race-mixing and stop hiding from Diversity.
We’re all about building bridges to the future, a thousand points of light, wouldn’t be prudent at this juncture.
I still have not gone through any of the above, but I thought this was rather interesting and wanted to share it –
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FZo2hhvvlpw
Starting at 2:43 there is a reference to the Holocaust. This show was first aired on March 7, 1968.
After all that, he probably gave a buck (or a bad check).
Zero carbon emissions from enough solar panels to power the world? I think not.
a dispensationalism of sorts is unavoidable.
You can call it that if you like, but I fail to see how it is necessarily a problem, at all.
miraculously giving it an appearance of old age.
Not unlike the “apparently old-aged” fully formed, full-grown flora and fauna and two adult human beings that appeared over the course of six days. Or stars and their light being created simultaneously. It’s not something that any six-day creationist in history has ever considered to be a “problem” because they take the verbal testimony of Scripture at face value. It’s a matter of walking by faith rather than by sight.
Preterists, by contrast, see no evidence, biblically or scientifically, that God has ever radically altered His creation.
1. The fall
2. The death, resurrection and ascension of Christ
Those two events strike me as rather radical in their effects upon the creation.
Admin, maybe you can help me understand better what clicked together on account of Tim Harris’ referenced comment.
Not to ignore the fact that a multiplicity of races did eventually come about, in the original creation, the kinship of the Trinity is reflected in one human family, not in a multiplicity of Adams of different races. (In passing let me note my disagreement with Tim Martin’s speculation about Adam being not the first physical man but rather merely the first covenantal man — God only creates things into a covenantal relationship with Himself so the idea of any creature, let alone a man, existing outside of covenantal relationship to God is preposterous.) You are quite right to take note of the connection between human kinship and the kinship in the Godhead; it is to be expected because man is created in God’s image. So far so good. But please clarify for me your phrase “focus solely on the covenantal and dismiss the genetic aspects of life,” as it sounds like you might be trying to establish a dichotomy where none naturally exists. To rephrase what I stated above, for a creature to have being is to exist in a covenantal relationship with God. (“For in him we live, and move, and have our being.”) To my ears it sounds odd to speak of covenantal aspects versus genetic aspects, as if the two could be somehow separated.
At the very least, as a practical matter, “our” widows and orphans to be cared for must be seen as including our flesh and blood. (Assuming the individuals concerned are not persisting in willful disobedience to God.) However, Jesus makes it clear that anyone who does the will of His Father in Heaven is established in a relationship more fundamental than even flesh and blood (Mt 12:48-50, Mk 3:33-35, Lk 8:21). Don’t those verses show that there weightier matters of the law to be observed here than the fact of a flesh and blood relationship?
I need to do more with this, but provisionally let me toss out what might be a constructive way of framing things. If for a creature to exist means to be in covenantal relationship with God, it follows that blood ties also put people in a covenantal relationship with each other. But just as Adam in his rebellion fell under the negative sanctions of the covenant (i.e., death) and needed to be redeemed, so all the flesh and blood relationships are also under the curse until they are redeemed in Christ. This does not negate the flesh and blood relationships by any means (they are redeemed) but it does establish the priority of doing the will of God as the foundation for Christian community. And we can’t get around the fact that the language used by Jesus in the referenced passages is broad enough to encompass all people regardless of race, at least potentially. We need to keep this in mind when we think about the question, “Who is my mother and who are my brethren?”
Thoughts?
Re: the Newsweek article — Ashley Merryman? That’s got to be one of the most racist names I’ve ever encountered.
The Newsweek article at the top of the page has given me just another reason why I’m going to instill white Nordic solidarity in my children – to horrify these handwringing pantywaists.
I’m glad you mentioned hyper-preterism in this article. I detest that doctrine, and I think it is essential that Christians, especially Kinists or “ethnically-conscious” Christians, grasp the doctrine of new creation and bodily resurrection. Resurrection is what gives our life and work here on earth meaning; it is what makes us more conscious of our own robust physicality. It is Gnostics who hate the structure of creation, which includes gender and race.
Speaking of solar electricity, young Thomas Edison lives in Nepal:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1212005/Teenager-invents-23-solar-panel-solution-developing-worlds-energy-needs-human-hair.html
Okay, Chris, excellent questions. I am not quite a full-blown Kinist, but I would like to take a stab at answering them.
You say that doing the will of God, rather than being of a certain race, is to be the foundation of Christian community. That is true – depending on what your definition of “community” is. The church is certainly a “people,” an “assembly,” and a “nation” of its own. But its existence does not obliterate the existence of other nations, as Revelation 21 makes clear.
Think of it this way. Your church is a family of sorts. God is your father. But don’t imagine for a second that frees you of your duty to your physical family. I want the church to preach the gospel, and I want all Christians to feel unity in the Lord. But I do not want the Christian family down the road, as pleasant as they are, to move into my house and eat my food. My household has borders, limits, and exclusions; my family has different characteristics and different sets of needs than the other. The same with nations. On a spiritual level, White, Negro, and Mongol Christians serve and worship the same God. But they have different sets of physical and cultural characteristics that make them largely unsuitable for trying to share the same civic society and government. If you doubt that, just consider the current state of formerly White cities now dominated by Negroes.
If a Samaritan, or a Negro, or a Mongol, or an Indian were lying alongside the road bleeding, I would help that person. I do not freak out about worshiping in a church congregated with other races. But we see time and time again that ethnically homogeneous societies are the most natural and the most stable, especially when Christianized. In short, there is a difference between civic community and ecclesiastical community; the sharing of baptism and the Eucharist is not the same as sharing schools and housing developments and obliterating ethnic distinctions through intermarrying.
All of what is said above applies to gender too; I want to worship with Christian women, but I won’t have them serving as presbyters, nor do I expect my church to create gender-free restrooms so everybody feels equal.
This whole question gets more interesting when you have ethnic groups that are dominantly Christian or dominantly unChristian. In the former case, we have the delights of Christendom, and we can gladly serve our kin; in the latter case, a Christian would have still to serve his unbelieving kin as a Christian and be willing to suffer any persecution.
We also must recognize that accurate stereotyping is not a sin. If all Cretans are liars and brutes, you better be pretty darn careful when you go to evangelize them. If Negroes have a tendency to rob and rape, don’t take your wife on a stroll through a black neighborhood in the name of racial reconciliation. If you convert an Irishman, tell him he better give up the drunken revelry. And so on.
Chris, the main point of that book blurb is that preterists (partial and hyper) don’t find biblical reasons for necessitating the idea that the ages of the world are punctuated by geological catastrophes. They would say that the fall of man, the passion of Christ, and Noah’s Flood do not fit the bill because they were local, not universal, in both extent and purpose. They would say that to deny this is to accept a dispensationalism of sorts wherein herbivores are instantly transmogrified into carnivores after the Fall, the entire earth is changed after the global Flood, and the judgments of Revelation do not climax with Rome’s destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD but are far off in the future, known only to Tim LaHaye, and will be global in scope as was true of the Flood.
I think the hyper-preterism heresy comes into play when Adam’s sin is said to not extend to all humans, because Adam is not the federal head of all humans. This would put some races of men in the category of animals, who are incapable of sinning, are exempt from judgment, and will never see heaven. But here’s a point of interest: YUCs argue that Adam’s sin extended to animals, who suddenly began to kill each other, and to the rest of creation as well. I think preterists of all stripes reject this last point as having no biblical foundation.
The trouble is that a person could make a lot of good points in arguing that this or that event was local, not universal, and still miss the forest for the trees. The assumption that all of Scripture and all of God’s actions are localized is fallacious, in my opinion. Having jumped from the possibility that Adam was the first covenant man rather than the first man, the hyper-preterist must extend the localized theme into eternity and reject the doctrine of the consummating return of Christ and the death blow to death itself. But while recognizing this as an error, I’d also like to point out that the YUC string of catastrophes extends to the Last Day as well, and (from what I can tell) the YUC refuses to admit of the possibility that the new heavens and new earth refer not to actual recycling of matter, but to the establishment of the gospel throughout all facets of life, everywhere, as foretold in Isaiah 65-66. This is what Jonathan Edwards, Charles Spurgeon, and many others believed.
Catastrophism is one of the main presuppositions among Christians today, and this is the point: even among those who do not classify as “dispensationalists” proper. They still conform to a dispensational way of thinking if they, for instance, believe that the Last Day will come as a result of environmental catastrophe or nuclear war.
Moving on to your question about what Tim Harris wrote.
No, I don’t believe that every creature is in covenant with Christ, with the exception of Genesis 9, where God makes a covenant with all living creatures not to flood the land with water again. It’s true that all things exist according to God’s purpose, but this is not the same thing as the covenant of grace that narrows in Genesis and throughout the Old Testament and then expands at the cross in a new and better covenant of grace, with a better High Priest and better promises. This covenant is not even extended to all who are created in God’s image, much less to creatures who are not.
(One might say that the Christian Identity error consists of treating the new covenant like the old.)
By the covenantal and genetic aspects of life, I mean that we are both spirit and flesh, and the latter is too often dismissed as a gnostic obsession with that which is fallen. But we are told that we are WORSE than infidels if we fail to provide for the needs of our own, and this includes temporal as well as eternal needs. The dichotomy is imagined not by Kinists but by those who teach that race, nationality, ethnic and cultural bonds, etc. are meaningless and irrelevant because we are “citizens of heaven.” This is not true religion. Still, I can see that my use of the word “covenantal” for “spiritual” was not well chosen, because the covenant affects every facet of life.
“However, Jesus makes it clear that anyone who does the will of His Father in Heaven is established in a relationship more fundamental than even flesh and blood (Mt 12:48-50, Mk 3:33-35, Lk 8:21). Don’t those verses show that there are weightier matters of the law to be observed here than the fact of a flesh and blood relationship?”
Yes, love for Christ is more fundamental than love for kin, and this is the context for the verses, not that the family of Jesus was replaceable by anyone else who was a believer. He fulfilled all of His familial duties, and we see a glimpse of this when He provides for His mother, even as He is dying. The apostle Paul does the same thing in Romans 9:3 when he expresses such devotion for his “kinsmen according to the flesh” that he would offer himself to be accursed if they could be saved. The offer was made to no others. The lesson to be learned is that we should consider the gospel to be of utmost importance but always remember that we are failing in our duties to the gospel if we neglect our kin. Note: Everyone would nod in agreement if I had written the word “family” in the previous sentence instead of the word “kin.” One of the great sicknesses of our age is that we honor family allegiance, for obvious personal reasons, but deny that any greater allegiances apply, except of the “we are the world” variety.
I second everything that Siegfried said.
To flesh out my earlier comments a bit more –
I refer to creaturely existence as covenantal because God’s process of creation is covenantal. 1) God commands the world into existence. The act of commanding things into existence indicates God’s absolute transcendent sovereignty. 2) Creation by command both presupposes and establishes a relationship – God addresses specific entities, such as light, firmament, heavens, waters, etc. When God commands things that do not yet have manifest existence, they clearly exist in God’s plan that He is bringing about. The relationship is established in that through the act of creating, God’s lordship over that which is created is made clear. As the things commanded into come into being, we can think of their very existence as an act of obedience. To exist in obedience to God is to exist in covenant with Him. So it was not the case that the world was created sans covenant and then later a covenant was brought into play. Rather, the very existence of the world has always been covenantal. 3) The commands were followed by judgment; God evaluated all that He created, declaring it good and blessing it.
We can see the covenantal relationship that man was created into made explicit when God blesses Adam and Eve in Gn 1:28 with a three-fold blessing that includes dominion, land and the promise of children. (We can see that the work of creation is to be continued by man as God’s vice-gerund, following the pattern that God established in the first week.) Adam’s sin is the rejection of God’s covenant love. God responds to Adam’s sin as a holy and offended covenant Lord, Father, and Husband whose love has been subject to the most egregious treachery. His holy jealousy demands the fullest penalty that can be applied, and it is God’s gracious love that intervenes to take the penalty on Himself. The legal aspect of the covenant is seen in the structure of the relationship and in the threat of death for disobedience. But this is not mere “strict justice” divorced from and in contradistinction to love; rather, it is justice fulfilled by love: betrayed love will seek righteous revenge with jealousy.
In my thinking, the covenantal relationship among the Persons of the Godhead, analogous to kinship among men, is the starting point of all that is covenantal between God and man and among men. “Covenant” is not something added to God’s relation with creation. Rather, covenant is that relation because covenant is God’s own self-relation. God’s bringing man into covenant with Himself is God drawing man to Himself in a bond of fellowship and love, to participate, as it were, in the perichoretic mutual indwelling of the Holy Society. (The mutual indwelling of Father and Son, and the mutual indwelling of Son and bride, and the essential unity of all believers in the Son are all set out very eloquently in the high priestly prayer of John 17.) The forensic and the ontological are held together in perfect harmony, as are love and law: the highest love is giving oneself for another; hence the highest law is that of love.
Of course mankind, having fallen into sin in Adam, was fit for damnation, and those who reject Christ’s love are doubly so. But as for God’s children, we are to strive to ensure that our human relations make the love of God more abundantly manifest in the world.
“Not to ignore the fact that a multiplicity of races did eventually come about, in the original creation, the kinship of the Trinity is reflected in one human family, not in a multiplicity of Adams of different races.”
This is the reason why Ken Ham argues that intermarriage among that one human family is not miscegenation. But it begs the question, because there is no definitive reason for God to have created multiple Adams of different races in order to bring about a multitude of races. It was necessary for Adam to be the federal head of his children who would die in order to show that the Second Adam is the federal head of His children who would live.
This gets back to what Tim was saying about kinship. In the Trinity, the Son is eternally begotten of the Father, and the Holy Spirit also proceeds from the Father. An analog of this unity in diversity was baked into creation too, and in the races of men. One could speculate about multiple Adams, but they are not really needed in order to be a reflection of the Trinity. Since God thinks diversity is a good thing, Ham’s argument falls flat. In other words, even if one could make the case that interracial marriage is acceptable, the idea that all men descended from Adam is not it.
Newsweek. . .and to think I was sort of proud when they quoted me.
admin, to put aside the issue of interracial marriage for the moment, I’d like ask you one thing about the statement In the Trinity, the Son is eternally begotten of the Father, and the Holy Spirit also proceeds from the Father. An analog of this unity in diversity was baked into creation too, and in the races of men.
This is a very important statement and I wonder if you are fully aware of the potential implications of it. The created analog that most point to is the parent-child relationship, and the husband-wife relationship. Nobody says that parents are ontologically superior to children or husbands ontologically superior to wives, but there is an order in the exercise of authority: children obey parents and wives obey husbands, not the other way around. This comports well with what the Bible shows us about the Persons of the Trinity: the Son delights to do the will of the Father, not the other way around — although the Father gives the Son all that He asks for — and the Holy Spirit is sent, not the Father. (Some egalitarianist theologians try to argue that the Son’s submission to the Father applied solely to the Son’s time of ministry on this earth, but that is ultimately an untenable position to take.) Of course, nobody with any sense argues that all children are to submit to all adults and all women are to submit to all men, although sometimes egalitarianists accuse us of such attempts at subjugation. But be that as it may, there is definitely a certain order in the parent-child and husband-wife relationship, just as there is in the economic (but not the ontological) Trinity.
Now you mentioned that the analog can also be seen in the races of men. So i have to ask whether this implies an order, of ruler and ruled. As we have seen above for both the Trinity and the parent-child/husband-wife, this would not have to imply ontological superiority and inferiority, but rather a differentiation of function.
I think if one wants to suggest that to be the case, it creates a serious problem for the kinist because you can’t have such a relational order without having a relationship — and a pretty intimate one at that — and such close relations between the races seem to be precisely what kinists are trying to get away from.
That’s what hit me in the face as soon as I read that there was a Trinitarian analog in the races — it would have to mean that the races need to be nearly as “one flesh” in terms of their intimacy.
Now I’m not suggesting that you should simply drop the idea like a hot potato on account of this apparent difficulty. Rather, I’m suggesting that it might be profitable to think about this some more. And while we are at it, let us consider what we can expect about the relations among the different races in eternity and how, since God’s will is to be done in earth as it is in Heaven, how we can get from where we are now to where we ultimately need to be.
I know I can have extremely close fellowship with my Christian friends without anyone losing his identity or boundaries being transgressed. In light of what we are discussing here, do you think it possible that a multiracial Christian society might be able to manifest comparable brotherly love across racial boundaries? And if the answer to that is affirmative, then we need to ask whether it is also an imperative?
In concluding this comment let me note that even if there is some sort of an imperative in all this, it is surely not one conforming to the definitions of the politically correct multiculturalism and diversity crowd, because we all know those folks are actually working to eliminate multiple cultures and diversity.
Anyway, I look forward to hearing your additional thoughts on this. May God burden us with His truth.
And an afterthought: there is no natural hierarchical order in relations among neighbors. I know you’re aware of that but I should have made that explicit in the context of this discussion.
But you should be proud, Winston! It’s like the devil himself throwing darts at a picture of your face. I always worry that someday I’ll be liked by the people who should hate me.
Good questions. I emphasized the races of men along with the the rest of creation as reflecting the Trinity because inequality always exists; there is no escaping it. I don’t think you can set any hard rules about who is to occupy superior or inferior positions, but they have a way of manifesting themselves over time. Take Noah, for instance. A lot of people spend so much energy denying that the curse of his own son extends to all blacks for all time that they miss an important question: Just who did this Noah think he was, cursing his own son and his son’s descendants? But he did and it happened. Inequalities manifest themselves, whether people choose to accept them or not.
It depends what you define by “close relations” when you say that Kinists are trying to get away from close relations between the races. This is only true for those relations that result in racial despoliation. We’re not looking to enact any laws that have not already existed.
The key point is that our side is not trying to impose any kind of relational order at all, outside laws to protect us. The things you’re discussing take shape organically, and there should be liberty in these relations. What we’re talking about is the kind of thing that used to be imposed by monarchs for the good of the people, and which democracies have been rather incapable of doing.
“That’s what hit me in the face as soon as I read that there was a Trinitarian analog in the races — it would have to mean that the races need to be nearly as ‘one flesh’ in terms of their intimacy.”
Using history as a guide, there is quite a lot that distinct races and nations can do for each other. Booker T. Washington used the good example of there being separate fingers in one hand. But the reason it’s called analogous is that we can never be unified as the Trinity is unified. Not with sinful bodies, anyway. And the laws to which I refer have sin as their central focus, as is true of all laws. We can only approximate the community shared by the Trinity, even within our races. As is always true when discussing race, it helps to boil it down to the level of the family. You can see that the family is both one and many, just like the Trinity, but always a pale imitation of it. By the way, just because something pales in comparison, it doesn’t render it unimportant. Everyone agrees that the family is of huge importance. So are ethnicity and race, because they give families large-scale cohesion of the same kind that children (individuals) receive in the family.
This is where another analog comes into play, since ethnicity and nationhood are ideally coterminous. Isaiah 49:23 calls kings “foster fathers” and queens “nursing mothers.” The analogy is obvious because no one expects that kings and queens, whom the Bible dictates should be of our near kin, can or should perform the duties of parents. But it’s an important analogy nonetheless.
“In light of what we are discussing here, do you think it possible that a multiracial Christian society might be able to manifest comparable brotherly love across racial boundaries? And if the answer to that is affirmative, then we need to ask whether it is also an imperative?”
I don’t see how any governed society can be contentedly multiracial and explicitly Christian. There is no such thing as a Christian Babel. Our ancestors agonized for centuries over what to do about a regrettable situation, just as we continue to agonize over it. The daily news is a constant reminder. If this is our lot in life, we’ll do what we can, as we have always done. But as soon as we get comfortable with multiracialism, all sense of nationhood disappears. If you look at the southwest border of the empire, you see two kinds of people: those who are fighting back and those who are deracinated. The latter have no sense of nationality left in them. And here’s the rub: Since we are trinitarian beings and it is hard-wired in us to rebel against absolute Babelist unity, we are never going to be loyal to Christ without being loyal to our families and wider communities. That’s the training ground, and it’s why the law was a “schoolmaster” to a particular people for thousands of years before Christ came. We’re talking about faith developing in the context of blood, and that’s why blood is so important.
From a friend’s blog (this is going around the Internet, no surprise) –
“Did you know that California became a state on September 9, 1850? In those days, the people had no electricity, the state had no money, almost everyone spoke Spanish and there were gunfights in the streets.
“Basically, nothing has changed except back then the women weren’t made of silicone and the men didn’t hold hands.”
After you peruse the site a bit, be sure to click on “Just Finished” at the bottom of the sidebar.
http://www.coppermoonshinestills.com/index.html
I got that link from this article at Salon.com –
http://www.salon.com/mwt/feature/2009/09/07/moonshine/
Popcorn Sutton’s revenge!
PJB gets Nuremberged:
http://buchanan.org/blog/human-events-vs-pat-buchanan-2140
It will be interesting to see what comes of the successful sting operation against ACORN to catch them aiding and abetting illegal alien child prostitution on camera. Boy, they really went for it! Despite the fact that it was a sting operation, they really showed their true colors big time.
Baltimore! It’s as good a place as any other for such a scandal to unfold.
And I find it interesting that Andrew Breitbart, who is breaking the story “from the right side” of the political spectrum (http://biggovernment.com/category/acorn/), used to be a researcher for Arianna Huffington. I guess he finally found his niche and now he’s exploiting it?
Chris — regarding your question about race and covenant above — I like your exposition of the comprehensive, organic, and correlative nature of creation and covenant. I have been led in a similar direction, having expounded a covenant model of the “laws of nature” in past Sunday Schools and papers, but I think you are adding something new and helpful. However, I don’t see it as contradictory to the duality I proposed. Here is what I would suggest. (1) I would caution against too rigid of an apriori model of covenant, which leads to the mistake of Sutton. Hierarchy need not be a part of a particular covenant, though I think blood-oath always is. (Where heirarchy is established, it would be covenantal, but not the converse.) (2) If your model can be sustained, then “tribe and covenant” become two modes of Covenant. However, they are modes that can be examined separately, even if only as limiting concepts. Indeed, in view of the creation/fall/redemption model of history, they become fragmented rather sharply and thus are part of the tension we feel in our throwness into that history.
Did you hear about the Hottentot uprising that took place on a St. Louis school bus?
http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/news/stories.nsf/illinoisnews/story/60D37B6EC5FF4711862576320011605B?OpenDocument
At first it was racially motivated. But after that hit the press, the cops retracted that statement and now says looking at the video it clearly is not.
I wonder what video he’s watching, cos this one here shows a tribe of black and one whitey. http://videos.stltoday.com/p/video?id=6172583
Admin,
I’d be interested to hear more of your thoughts on whether or not the Flood could be considered a local event. I have studied what Tim Martin has had to say on this subject and I must admit that I find much of what he says to be compelling. As an aside I do reject outright Martin’s “full preterism” as well as the notion that Adam is not the universal ancestor of all humanity.
I do find the case for a local flood to be somewhat compelling, although I’m not dogmatic on the issue. The universal language that is used to describe the flood is used similarly elsewhere without “global” connotations. We read later on in Genesis about how the famine in Egypt during Joseph’s time was “global” and that “all countries” came to Egypt to buy grain. Lot’s daughters complain that there was not a man in the earth for them to go into after the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah. The plague of locusts in Exodus is said to blot out the sky. Acts 2 states that all countries were present on the day of Pentecost. The universal language of the Flod is similar to the language Christ uses during the Olivet discourse, such as “all flesh” would die unless God shortened those days. These are a few examples of how the Bible uses universal language in historical narrative when there is clearly a local context.
It seems to me that the context of Genesis 2-9 is the country of Eden, which would have included the Garden of Eden. This territory is identified in ch. 2 by the four rivers listed. This seems to me to be the geographical context of much of the narrative that takes place the early chapters of Genesis. The first chapter of Genesis does not give a specific geographical reference because God’s creation is truly universal. Anyway, this would explain how Cain was exiled out of the earth after slaying his brother. He was simply exiled from the geographical locale he considered home. The earth is used in the context of the flood in a the sense of refering to people and not geography anyway since the earth’s corruption refers to the wickedness of the people and not the planet.
I believe that there are hints of the Flood being restricted in terms of anthropology as well. Genesis 6:4 states that the Nephilim were in the earth in those days (before the Flood) and also after that (after the Flood). Also we find Cain’s genealogy in ch. 4 which lists Cain’s various descendants in the present tense (present to Moses’ contemporaries?). In other words, it seems that Moses is identifying to his audience distinctive characteristics whereby Cain’s descendants were identified in those days. Finally, the scope of the Flood is given in the midst of specific genealogical data. Genesis 5 enumerates Adam’s progeny specifically through Seth which seems to hint at the special role that Seth and his descendants will play in world history. Genesis 10 picks up where Genesis 5 leaves off and enumerates the descendants of Noah. Again this seems to imply to me that the Flood is given in the context of Seth’s lineage. The other sons and daughters of Adam and Eve who had migrated to the far flung areas of the globe are not included.
Another final piece of evidence is that nations are typically identified by there place in the Table of Nations in Genesis 10. The recurring exception to this are the gigantic people usually refered to as Rephaim, but also referred to Nephilim again in Numbers 13. The Nephilim/Rephaim don’t seem to fit in well to the Table of Nations. There is also the extra biblical anthropological evidence to consider. The Egyptians described the racial characterists of many different people shortly after the time when the Flood was supposed to have occured. These characteristics have remained virtually unchanged to this day. How did race develop so quickly after the Flood? Perhaps it had already been developing for several generations prior to this. Deuteronomy 32:8, which is likely at least somewhat of a basis for what Paul is saying in Acts 17:26 seems to imply that the idea of separate nations and peoples goes back to the sons of Adam himself and was not a novel concept invented at the Tower of Babel. If my estimation is correct, then Babel was more of a reaffirmation of an existing order rather than the new creation of separate nations and identities.
Given the data presented in the Table of Nations it is easiest to conclude that the Flood primarily affected the Meditteranean race, ie. the caucasians. We can identify the people described relatively well to this day in the Table of Nations. Japheth comprises most of the people of European descent. Shem comprises most of the people deriving from the ancient near East. Ham comprises many of the people of north Africa and some of the people in the near/middle east.
It is difficult to figure out exactly how South Asian dravidians, East Asian mongoloids, African Negroes, and North American aborigines fit into this picture. Some will say that the colored races primarily descend from Cush the son of Ham since Jeremiah describes Cushites or Ethiopians not being able to change their skin color. It’s assumed that they would contrast with the “milk white” skinned Isrealites that Jeremiah describes in the book of Lamentations. It should be pointed out the many of the north african tribes and nations are described in various places as “mingled people” in the old testament. This plays it self out historically as well. Historically Ethiopia was known as Abyssinia, which R.P. Oliver points out means “land of the mulatto.” If this reasoning is correct, this would mean that Cush was not the source of some of his descendants darkness or duskiness, but rather that they became mingled with dark-skinned people over time.
I think that this explains a lot about the existence of races and in the world without jumping to extreme conclusions about Adam not being an ancestor of all humans or some humans not really being human or being able to be saved. Salvation is for all Adam’s progeny. One also does not have to accept the suppositions of full or radical preterism in order to adopt this view. Sorry I’ve been so long winded. This is not characteristic of me. I submit this for your perusal since I have so much regard for your opinion. As I said I am not dogmatic on the issue and am certainly open to being persuaded.
Thanks,
Scarborough Fayre
Hey SF, good to hear from you.
Yes, I find much of what Martin writes compelling too. I first learned of him about 7 years ago when he wrote a short paper called “I Will Send Rain Upon the Earth.” His book grew out of that fascinating and irrefutable paper. The whole edifice of what he calls covenantal creationism grew out of what he understands Scripture to be saying about the Flood. I think there are some cracks in the edifice, and it ultimately veers into what has been identified by the church at large as a heresy (hyper-preterism), but along the way there are some gold nuggets.
Since I take the first two chapters of Genesis to be both poetic and historical, I can’t say for certain that Adam was the father of ALL now living. But this is how it has been understood by the church, and I don’t dispute it.
Still, you list many good points to consider, and another one is the wife of Cain. The Bible very nonchalantly mentions that he found one when he was banished, and joined himself to a foreign people. But if Adam was the first and only man on earth, it means that a sibling must have left the clan much earlier, before Seth was even born. They lived a long time in those days, but not long enough to make any of this very practical. Keep in mind that even before his son Enoch was born, there were enough people to help Cain build and populate a city. It’s possible that all of these people came from Adam, and many people have crunched the numbers to prove it, but it has always seemed improbable because this number-crunching assumes that a woman would have 500 child-bearing years, and produce hundreds of children. I find this very hard to believe for a number of reasons, not the least of which is that we are not like ants and bees, and God does not intend for two parents to share their attentions with that many, just as He does not intend for siblings to marry. Noah lived just as long as Adam but had only three children.
Archaeology supports the idea that the Flood was vast and catastrophic but regional. I also agree with you that there are gaps inferred in Genesis 10.
And I hope everyone reading this pays close attention to what you wrote here: “Deuteronomy 32:8, which is likely at least somewhat of a basis for what Paul is saying in Acts 17:26, seems to imply that the idea of separate nations and peoples goes back to the sons of Adam himself and was not a novel concept invented at the Tower of Babel. If my estimation is correct, then Babel was more of a reaffirmation of an existing order rather than the new creation of separate nations and identities.”
Precisely correct. It’s amazing that Christians still dwell on false conceptions about Babel, but this explains why they are essentially trying to act like Nimrod, even in our own time. God will never allow what these lying preachers are trying to bring about. It will all end in bloodshed as cosmopolitan “nations” self-destruct. They never learn from history.
You’re wise to not be dogmatic on these things. Leave that to lunatics like Ken Ham and Doug Phillips and the Morrises. These are the sort of men who will accuse you of worshiping a different god for merely questioning these things. As Ken Ham has stated clearly, he has no “interpretation” of Genesis. His view of it is the only correct view, according to his majesty.
Have the 70 nations ever been identified? And what, if anything, is their continuing relevance for us today? (Particularly with reference to “international” marriages.)
A few notes that may be pertinent:
– Primary focus of covenant prior to Christ’s death and resurrection is on national Israel. (Deut. 32:8-9, 10:14-15; Acts 14:16)
– All nations brought in, and the distinction removed, in Christ. (Eph 2:14-17; Gal. 3:28, 6:15; Col. 3:11; Ps. 2:8, 72:8)
Obviously, for the Bible-believing Christian, there is at least a sense in which distinctions have been removed; the question here is whether there is also a continuing sense in which the distinctions are not (to be) removed. If the answer is affirmative, then isn’t it important to identify the 70 nations so that faithfulness to God’s law can be maintained?
A few things need to be hashed out here.
1. The most important lesson of Genesis 10-11 is what SF said: that the dispersion at Babel was not new. It simply forced upon Nimrod’s experiment what had already begun much, much earlier.
2. The debate about all nations being brought into the covenant is between those who view it in a racial sense and those who view it in a spiritual sense. (There may also be a third sense in which the covenant is open to all but only one race binds to it in large numbers. This seems to align closely with history.)
3. If racial, the CI folks are correct, and your question about how to identify the 70 nations becomes rather important. While you and I are reading the verses you listed in the same way, CI would say that the “other nations” (the goyim) are the lost tribes of Israel and their blood descendants. But how they identify these people today is beyond me.
4. If spiritual, the “distinction removed” is what gave Israel importance (the tabernacle, temple, and high priest). This would still not justify miscegenation, however, because it is not necessary for dissimilar nations to be physically unified in order to be spiritually unified. In fact, we would have to conclude that physical amalgamation is to be avoided if we have learned anything at all from Babel. But this is the whole point: the lesson has not been learned by most Christians today.
It took me a while to realize that the common idea that the races developed at Babel is NOT demanded by the biblical text and there are other explanations for it; one just needs to be deprogrammed from the YEC/Ken Ham ideas in which most evangelical churches are immersed. Babel is about language; race is about descent, inheritance, and human typology. We see that descent and inheritance are established before linguistic divisions; the blessings and cursings of Noah’s three sons and their descendants provide a clear example of that on a large scale. The same applies after Babel, such as in the case of Isaac and Ishmael, and Jacob and Esau. For Ken Ham to say that race is just an accidental genetic side effect of the linguistic divisions at Babel is extremely short-sighted.
The distinctions which are removed in the new covenant are more particular than descent, inheritance, or human typology. Such distinctions involve circumcision, food taboos, ritual cleanliness, land, and the Temple cult. Under the new covenant, physical circumcision as a distinctly male Hebrew rite is replaced with baptism for all; food taboos are abolished; ritual cleanliness is no longer relevant; the redemptive work of God is expanded from the Holy Land to include the whole world; and the geographic temple is replaced with the body of Christ, which can be manifest in any nation.
The fact that the above distinctions are abolished does not mean that descent, inheritance, and human typology are abolished. Typology – the way in which groups humans display distinctive physical and social characteristics – clearly still exists. Descent and inheritance are still relevant in that the family has a redemptive role to play, and parents and children still have obligations to each other. Furthermore, we have no reason to believe that God cannot or does not still render blessings or curses upon groups of people. For example, just because Israel no longer can claim covenantal particularity does not mean that God has forgotten her. Paul says in Romans that though most were blinded, a remnant would be saved after the Gentiles are brought in, on the basis that they are loved on account of the patriarchs. Whatever the fulfillment of that might be, you must agree that God is seeing things in “racial terms” and is not being “colorblind.”
Finally, we see a surprising site in Revelation 21: “nations” in the plural sharing in the new creation. This echoes OT prophecies that picture the nations, distinctly, sharing in the blessings of God. He will prepare a feast for all “peoples,” says Isaiah, when He at last defeats death; and so forth. The NT picture of redemption does not involve stripping us down to the bare level of individuality so we can squeeze into the kingdom. We are physical, social, dependent beings belonging to a set of different collectives, each with its own place in a hierarchy and its own sphere of responsibility, both now and forever. We pray foremost for our people to attain perpetuity through grace; we then pray that they would prosper and enjoy peace now.
Reason 666,666,666 to keep your kids out of the government-controlled schools:
http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/2643393/Boy-12-turns-into-girl.html
Somebody is going to have to help me out here with the “typology” connection — I’m afraid I’m having a hard time grasping how typology is at work here. BTW I did a bit of Internet searching — such as perusing http://www.christiancourier.com/articles/126-a-study-of-biblical-typology — but couldn’t see the connection so I decided to ask.
Chris – perhaps I erred in using the word “typology.” A better word to use would be merely “type” or “kind”…just as God commanded his creatures to reproduce “kind after kind.” Yes, I know this was originally given to species as a whole, but there is more to unpack from the command. There is also the fact that (as even Newsweek tells us!) humans naturally develop an intuitive association with people who resemble them in certain ways and identify as part of that in-group.
I will explain more on this later. But it is late. Until then, you might check out First Word’s series of posts on Ken Ham’s book, if you haven’t already.
http://www.wave3.com/Global/story.asp?S=11129297#
Get yourself over to Youtube and do a search on Innocence Destroyed.