But, along with Berry, many respected Reformed theologians reject the “tripartite” division of man and point out its Greek influence, preferring instead a “holistic” view.

Cornelius Van Til, Herman Bavinck, the great B.B. Warfield, and J. Gresham Machen, all reject the tripartite view, as does their disciple Dr. Greg Bahnsen, who has a great analytical article on the mind/body problem in philosophy:

http://www.cmfnow.com/articles/pa143.htm

“What is matter? Never mind! What is mind? Never matter!” ~ Warfield.

I remain unconvinced of your program, Henderson, though, as I’ve said before, I sympathize with the direction you’re moving and think we need much more of it.

(I share your frustration with White-Nationalists and their discussions of race.)

As a Van Tillian, I remain committed to the position that “race” is ultimately a spiritual category (a category that draws all the particular physical features, like genetics, culture, linguistics and family-line, into a relevant relationship with each other.)

But, I’m also committed to the idea that God could take one-hundred white-marbles and divide them into 10 equal groups — where all else is equal but the division — and we’d have legitimate, non-arbitrary distinctions among the 100 marbles.

“Race” is how God thinks about people-groups (and subsequently, we humans are endowed with an affinity for the group we’ve been placed in). He makes the “actors” on the stage of history. He develops the context of man.

This sort of work should be done by theologians-in-training at the anthropology department in the local seminary — too bad they’re busy working for Satan.

I disagree that one must insist upon this. One could just as easily view the mind as flesh, and therefore part of the body. At best, you could argue that the mind is at the point where body and soul converge, but I see no reason to insist that the mind is an entity separate from the body.

I also think Wendell Berry is very helpful on this score. He rejects the dualism of body and soul:

“They conclude that the formula for man-making is man = body + soul. But that conclusion cannot be derived, except by violence, from Genesis 2:7, which is not dualistic. The formula given in Genesis 2:7 is not man = body + soul; the formula there is soul = dust + breath…”

I should have clarified earlier that I am indeed the author of “Reflections on Race and Spirit.” I will address your numbered points with my own numbered points corresponding to yours now:

1. I thought about footnoting it, but I decided that it was too much of a short introduction to a type of racial thought rather than a complete work, so I decided to forget about footnotes. However, this is the point (that the article is only a short intro) you need to understand to understand why it takes the appearance it does and also why your following points have only partial validity. The authors referenced throughout the article (especially those at the start) are emphasized because I want the reader to utilize their ideas to form their own understanding of race. This includes Mircea Eliade, whose study of religion and denunciation of modern anti-religious (scientific materialist) thought is very helpful to my racialism even if Eliade did not concern himself with race. After all, can we say anything in the world really has meaning if it does not survive death? Therefore, since race (along with many other things in the world) has meaning to us we can assert it has a metaphysical origin. This origin lays in immortal metaphysical Archetypes, which Eliade explains was common to the belief of most archaic peoples. But the Archetypes are ultimately the creations of God.

2. I can see how someone could use Plato alone to justify a sort of “Race Platonism”, but that is not what I am doing. Notice how I did not assert that my idea is entirely equivalent to Plato’s ideas, but still related. My idea of the Race Archetype is actually more based off of the ancient ideas of spiritual Archetypes common to archaic religions, which is related to Plato’s concept (this is mentioned in Eliade’s book “The Myth of the Eternal Return”). However, my entire racial paradigm is not based only on the relationship between the Race Archetype and the Race Physique (the physical entity of the race). I will explain this later, but I will say for now that the connection between the Archetype and the Physique can be understood as the relation between the spiritual and the material. Yockey wrote, “Matter cannot be explained materialistically. Its whole significance derives from the soul.” You see, I believe that everything material which we see around us is the manifestation of the spiritual, it does not exist without spiritual forces and entities behind them (I mean everything not just race). These spiritual forces are in turn the creations of God Himself. So, in the same way the immortal soul of a man is connected to his mortal body, the immortal Archetype of a race is connected to the mortal Physique of the race.

3. The division into body, mind, and soul is the only valid division for a Christian or any other sort of religious man who rejects materialism. The existence of the body is self-evident, but the mind and the soul must be separated. You see, if the mind IS the soul, then there is no soul, because the mind is dependent upon the brain and nervous system, which means that it dies with the body. The soul on the other hand, is an immortal entity that survives death, unlike the body and mind. Of course, most religious humans (including myself) believe that the soul retains all or part of the memory/experience which the mind experiences during its life (which is limited to the duration of the body). That is, in a simplified form, the reason those of us who share the ancient ontology of most religions must make the distinction of body/mind/soul. Now, if race truly matters, it must also be seen as not only a physical thing, but also both a psychological as well as metaphysical entity. Can a Christian accept such thoughts? I don’t see why not, as Christian teachings at their essence leave room for further thought.

Now Shotgun, I will quote your last points in parts and respond to each individually.

Shotgun: “Also, the entire scheme seems arbitrary. Supposing a person born deformed in Africa (to negro parents)has all the physical character-traits usually associated with Europeans, and furthermore, is shipped off to Europe and raised there all his life so that he shared the same culture and “volksgeist” of the Europeans. Under your scheme, it seems we would have to claim that he was a racial European.”

My Answer: It is not arbitrary. Note the fact that I mentioned how Race of the Body is the starting point for identifying members of your own race. I did not say that physical race is only an image, I affirmed that it has some influence (although not total, but still some) on Race Spirit. Race of the Body is more than just appearance, it includes the tendencies and instincts of a race which are genetic in origin. These genetic tendencies and instincts greatly contribute to giving a race its character and style. Although, what I meant in my explanation in the essay is that people exaggerate the influence of genetics on such racial tendencies and instincts. I was not rejecting the biological view of race entirely.

Even with that alone we could reject an African who looks European and is raised as a European, as it is in your hypothetical situation. (By the way, I believe you meant to say both Race Spirit as well as Folk Spirit in your comment, they are not equivalent). First, this African cannot entirely have a European Folk Spirit or be of the European Race Spirit because blood has some influence, he can only take on some of its characteristics (but it is impossible for a total racial foreigner to join the Race Spirit of another race completely). In other words, I believe that a racial foreigner such as an African can only superficially take on the characteristics of another race because these characteristics are not inherent in his blood or in his soul. Secondly, this African would have children that would not appear European, and thus their foreignness would make them unacceptable to true Europeans.

Finally, you must remember the Race of the Soul, which is still very real even if it is not accessible to our physical senses and psychological evaluations. Yockey wrote: “For the animals, that which appears — matter — is Reality. The world of sensation is the world. But for primitive man, and a fortiori for Culture-man, the world separates out into Appearance and Reality. Everything visible and tangible is felt as a symbol of something higher and unseen.” Thus, Appearance has its roots in Reality (the Metaphysical realm), but it is not equivalent to Reality.

Shotgun: “Unless we appeal directly to an actual *person* (i.e. The Christian God) who directly separates and legitimizes racial categories, then we’ll never be able to establish the categories for ourselves here on Earth (from an autonomous standpoint.) Impersonal Nature, in the end, (no matter how spiritual it turns out to be) simply cannot (in any authoritative way) distinguish between the races and account for our racial experience as humans.”

My Answer: My article was written in such a way as to appeal to people of any religion, not just Christians. This is why I did not mention that Race, in all its facets (Physique, Spirit, Archetype), is the creation of God. I took it for granted that the reader, if Christian, would take the position that God created it, and if Pagan, that whatever god or gods he believes in, also created it. How do we distinguish between races? This is briefly addressed in the article where I mention that Race of the Body is the starting point of identification, from which it then follows that one must proceed to identify the Race of the Mind through psychological observation. This is actually explained in the works of Julius Evola, who I recommended at the beginning. Yes, I am fully aware of how crazy and repulsive Evola can be, but I cannot deny his influence on my racial thought.

Shotgun: “I love where the article is going but I think it needs fleshing out. I also like the idea of speaking about a “Volksgeist”. Thank you for posting it here.”

My Answer: Yes, the article is admittedly a bit underdeveloped and overly-condensed. It simply a short introduction that relies on the reader exploring further by taking it as a starting point and then using the works of Rosenberg, Yockey, and Evola to go further. When I first wrote the article, I was buried in work and had limited time but had an urge to get my ideas out to the public. There was too much of a lack of thought on the subject, as I mentioned at the beginning. However, I think someday, when I have more spare time, I will take up the task of writing a longer and more complete essay on race using the present article as an outline. For now, “Reflections on Race and Spirit” will have to suffice.

A few words about your article, sir:

I disliked it the same way a knife dislikes the sharpening-stone; your article does a great job in surveying the contemporary scene among white-nationalists regarding different theories of race and offers an interesting “spiritual” view though it is one that I have to ultimately reject.

I’ll make a few quick points:

1. I wish it was footnoted. In the footnotes, you could have expounded on minutiae and supported your arguments with citations to other material. I am happy that you’ve introduced me to Mircea Eliade for example, but I have no idea how you intend for his thought to supplement the point you were making when you alluded to him.

2. Many thinkers appeal to Plato’s forms to support their position, without taking into account the fatal flaw in Platonism: How to bring the forms into contact with the particulars?

Simply saying that it happens (or, in your case: simply claiming that people have this consciousness of the racial form) is to skirt the difficult issue all together…which is fine if you’re not serious, but if you base your entire racial paradigm on the relationship between a racial form and particular racial objects, then you have to provide an explanatory mechanism for how the two meet. (Plato says: The Demiurge does it!)

3. I’m not sure the tripartite distinction of race (into Race/Mind, Race/Body and Race/Soul) is acceptable to a Christian. The tripartite distinction of a human into “body / mind / soul” is controversial and by no means is there a consensus. Your article simply assumes it without giving any good reason. Yes, it’s part of your explanatory mechanism, but that’s not a reason to accept it prima-facie.

Also, the entire scheme seems arbitrary.

Supposing a person born deformed in Africa (to negro parents)has all the physical character-traits usually associated with Europeans, and furthermore, is shipped off to Europe and raised there all his life so that he shared the same culture and “volksgeist” of the Europeans. Under your scheme, it seems we would have to claim that he was a racial European.

Unless we appeal directly to an actual *person* (i.e. The Christian God) who directly separates and legitimizes racial categories, then we’ll never be able to establish the categories for ourselves here on Earth (from an autonomous standpoint.) Impersonal Nature, in the end, (no matter how spiritual it turns out to be) simply cannot (in any authoritative way) distinguish between the races and account for our racial experience as humans.

To conclude:

I love where the article is going but I think it needs fleshing out. I also like the idea of speaking about a “Volksgeist”. Thank you for posting it here.

I’ve never met a white man yet willing to give up his convictions for the sake of unity — and those who claim to do so are being dishonest.

Also,

The more I read that original paper you linked us to, the more I like it, though I had mistakenly thought it was written by an Aurthur Henderson that has passed on. Seems clear now that it’s much more recent. I’m probably wrong again, but I think you are the author after all.

If so, I’d like to thank you for helping narrow the scope and focus of the discussion.

This logically means that the more developed, refined and disciplined the culture becomes, the more neurotic, uptight hypocrisy it will produce, as it progressively alienates humans from their natural state. Psycho-analysis is meant to help over-civilized humans to cope with this condition.

Now then, right-wing evolutionary psychologist Kevin MacDonald has bashed Freudian theories and tried to make it look like as if his own discipline would have nothing to do with Freud’s Jewish charlatanism. But he “protesteth too much”: even though disagreeing on details, Freud and MacDonald agree on the fundamental proposition that men, no matter how seemingly civilized, are little more than dressed-up apes, subjected to the dark forces of their animalistic Id – or their stone-age genes.

“Evolutionary psychology” is a soft pseudo-science just as much as Freudian or Jungian psycho-analysis.

I agree with you that MacDonald’s scientific materialism is repulsive. I did not give you the link to that interview because I thought anything of their materialism. Plato’s ideas are only valuable to me insofar as they are spiritual, not just scientific.

My purpose in linking the interview was because I agreed with MacDonald on the need for conservative racialist movements to stop appearing suspicious and backwards. We should promote belief in religion, but if we become so obsessed with a specific religious position to the point where it is oppressive, we turn away too large a number of decent people.

“I don’t give a fig for white nationalism devoid of our Creator and Redeemer. I can’t imagine a bigger waste of time.”

I had a similar thought this morning.

The thought of a White Christian state is indescribably beautiful to me. I think about it a lot.

“Finally, brethren, whatsoever things are true, whatsoever things are honest, whatsoever things are just, whatsoever things are pure, whatsoever things are lovely, whatsoever things are of good report; if there be any virtue, and if there be any praise, think on these things.”

Philippians 4:8

Something else I thought about, yesterday I think; the decline of Christian values here in America has coincided with the anti-White agenda (and the homosexual agenda, and the feminist agenda, etc.)

Anyway, I pray God blesses you and your readers. Take care.