8a: Whiteness Pt 1a

There is so much to think about in this chapter it is taking me a while to absorb it all.  One of the footnotes in this section lead to information about Heidegger.  I wanted to look at that before continuing with Johnson.  Here are some clipping from that reference.  

These lessons are part of a wider study seeking to answer a timely but age old question:

Psalms 11:3 If the foundations are destroyed, what can the righteous do?”

God set boundaries to protect us from evil. Underneath each boundary lays a foundation. When evil men redefine biological sex (Gen 1:27), they strike at that foundation. When evil men redefine marriage (Gen 2:23-24), they strike at that foundation. When evil men redefine nation (Gen 10:5), they strike at that foundation. When the footing is shattered, people lose hope and become easy prey to evil forces.

When God freed the sons of Israel from Egypt (Ex 1:1) He continued His promise to make them into a nation (Gen 12:1-2). He taught them as they marched through the desert to the Promised Land. He gave them their first lessons on nationhood. He reminded them of their history and origin. In the first 11 chapters, and of first importance, were the definitions of nation, marriage, and biological sex. From chapter 12 on, to the end of the New Testament, God persistently impressed these definitions upon His chosen, but deviant, people. His definitions were not contrary to the nature of things. This was His plan and means of bringing the world a Savior and conquering evil. What would have happened had He not held to these definitions or worked against His own laws of nature?

I hope to bring light upon these questions and others like them in this series of studies called What is a Nation? To explore this broader topic I will review a number of books, the first of which is The White Nationalist Manifesto by Greg Johnson. I will add some comments and study questions to each post to turn them into short 10-20 minute lessons. To go to the beginning of this series click here.


Greg Johnson, “Heidegger and Ethnic Nationalism,” Part 1 | Counter-Currents

 Martin Heidegger, the most celebrated and influential philosopher of the twentieth century, was an ethnic nationalist
 it was a logical outgrowth of his philosophy. Which means that today’s nationalists can draw upon the most formidable thinker of our time to deepen, sharpen, and defend the ethnonationalist idea.
 The kinds of political order that men create are based on their fundamental worldview: their sense of who they are, where they fit into the world, what is right and wrong, and what is politically possible.
 How do cosmopolitan man, individualist man, and technological man all hang together? Do they spring from a common root?
 In traditional societies, the notions of order do not differentiate between the human and the natural worlds.
 The early Greek natural philosophers, however, noticed that there was a difference between the ways of the natural and the human worlds. Human ways of life—languages and customs—vary from place to place (meaning that men have different cultures) and from time to time (meaning that cultures have histories). Human ways of life are particular, not universal. They are not unchanging, but Protean and restless and hard to pin down.
 Nature, by contrast, was the same everywhere, and it changes so slowly that the Greeks thought it never changed at all, just went through endless cycles. The early Greek natural philosophers believed that the universal is better than the particular, the unchanging is better than the changing, and cyclical change is better than non-cyclical change (including “progress”). Nature’s laws are better than human laws. Nature allows certitude and predictability, whereas human customs lack these advantages. Thus the early Greek natural philosophers replaced the old idea of the way of things with a distinction between nature, which is universal and unchanging, and convention, which is particular and mutable—varying from time to time and place to place, never repeating or returning to the same. And they held that nature is better than convention, thus we should guide our lives by nature and not convention.
 The beginnings of individualism and cosmopolitanism are basically the same:
 To say that one is a cosmopolitan is to say that one is an emancipated individual who lives by reason in accordance with nature, which is universal and unchanging.
 How does cosmopolitan and individualist man become technological man? The common root of all three is the use of reason, emancipated from social prejudice, to gain knowledge of nature. Once the cosmopolitan individual decides to take his bearings from reason and nature rather than custom and convention, he looks within and finds his natural human desires for food, comfort, security, etc. Then he looks around nature with unblinkered eyes for ways to satisfy himself. Having discarded any merely social conventions, he has no impediments to gratifying his wishes at the expense of nature. Scientific and technological progress was up and running.
 But what if, as Heidegger argues, the primary source of meaning in life and the primary source of moral and aesthetic measure is our participation in the worlds of shared custom and opinion—in various ethnic communities—the very things that cosmopolitan, individualist, and technological man is concerned to leave behind? Heidegger’s answer is that a world deprived of meaning and measure will become a world of unbounded nihilism—nihilism spreading out in all directions.
 A world without measure is also a world without borders and boundaries. It is a world in which distinct nations and races will disappear, for liberation from particular collective identities is the toll we pay to play the whole cosmopolitan game, and if the satisfaction of our desires is what life is all about, why let racial differences constrict your potential dating and mating pool?
 But the universal, homogeneous global state will be no utopia. What is the meaning of life for cosmopolitan-individualist-technological man? Basically to appropriate, transform, and consume nature. And doing so without measure leads to what Heidegger called “the gigantic” (das Riesige): the realm of exploding populations, of cities surging upwards, plunging downwards, and sprawling out in all directions—a world where the new is always improved and more is always better—a world where knowing that you can do something is equivalent to knowing that you should do it—a world of an ever-expanding humanoid biomass, throbbing, swarming, and pullulating over the globe—until, at last, we crash into objective limits that we refused to see and factor into our plans, and the earth becomes a scorched boneyard, in which some of the skeletons enjoyed the privilege of a long string of numbers in their bank accounts before the lights blinked out forever and the world returned to being just lifeless matter in space.
Click on the "The White Nationalist Manifesto" tag below to see all the posts in this series. To go to the start of this series click here.

The Platform of The National Justice Party

Because their site is blocked by social media, I've posted this here for easy reference.
As seen at https://nationaljusticeparty.com/platform/
Download Platform PDF
  1. The United States of America will be declared an outpost of Western civilization and a state dedicated to its European-heritage population and their posterity. It will be the policy of the state to set immigration and natal policy that will ensure a permanent European majority. The rights of historic minority populations will be respected.
  2. We demand the extension of the 1964 Civil Rights act to provide equal protections and privileges to the White majority, or the act must be repealed.
  3. We support the nationalization and strategic break ups of banks, mass media, and monopolistic corporations in order to create public accountability and guarantee that they serve the nation first.
  4. We support a two percent ceiling on Jewish employment in vital institutions so that they better represent the ethnic and regional population balance of the country.
  5. We support the sacred rights of free speech, freedom of religion and freedom of association. Political views will not be censored by the state or any large private concerns. It will be illegal for any employer to retaliate against workers for political activism and expression outside the workplace.
  6. We support private property rights, including a program to make home ownership more accessible to stably employed family men. Small businesses and communities will be granted the right to refuse service or home ownership to anyone for any reason they see fit.
  7. We stand firm in defense of the right of law abiding citizens to own firearms.
  8. We demand the FBI, which acts as nothing more than a political secret police force for elite interests, be abolished and replaced with a legitimate federal law enforcement agency.
  9. We demand an end to political contributions and corporate lobbying. Elections must be publicly financed.
  10. The corrupt two party system must be abolished and replaced by a system that offers real representation to racial groups and economic classes.
  11. We oppose America’s ongoing military entanglements and demand the return of all troops to the homeland. We will engage in diplomacy under the doctrine of ”America First” and cease the internationalist project of exporting liberalism.
  12. We will nationalize the defense industry and make war profiteering a criminal act. All able bodied men will be conscripted into national service.
  13. Lobbying on behalf of foreign nations will be banned and classified as espionage. Foreign negotiations will be conducted through official diplomatic channels.
  14. We will declare Israel a rogue state and exporter of terrorism. The national rights of the Palestinian people must be respected.
  15. We will establish a new economic policy that stresses the family wage, full and stable employment, and a strong middle class. We will abolish the income tax on productive work and put this burden on capital and speculative income.
  16. We call for correcting the power imbalance between labor and management through a national labor organization that guarantees employee rights.
  17. We support an industrial plan that brings home capital and manufacturing and invests in our depressed and de-industrialized heartland. We will implement massive public works projects to modernize our crumbling infrastructure.
  18. Usurious and predatory lending practices will be outlawed. All credit will be issued by the state with no middle-man profiteers.
  19. Health care is a right. Health care must be removed from the control of for-profit hospitals and insurance companies and made a public service for all people. Preventative care will be emphasized and physical fitness will be promoted.
  20. We will restore reason, logic and tradition to the education system by implementing a comprehensive classical curriculum. Homosexual, neoliberal, and transgender propaganda will be explicitly banned from being taught to children.
  21. We will establish a Department of Culture that will oversee the creation of art and architecture to enlighten the public through beauty and transcendence. Suburbs and small towns will be revitalized with beautification projects to make them walkable and attractive and to encourage social life.
  22. The state must act as the steward of the environment. Industrial and economic needs will be balanced with quality of life and the preservation of natural beauty. Wildlife will be protected, and we will expand national parks and wilderness areas. Religious slaughter and other inhumane treatment of animals will be banned.
  23. We support strong families. Married women will be paid by the state to care for their children. No fault divorce will be repealed, and homosexual marriage will be banned.
  24. The benefits of automation will be shared among all citizens. Technological advancement will be used to reduce work hours, raise wages, lower the retirement age and increase pensions.
  25. In order to put an end to racial conflict and hate, all people will be entitled to be policed, educated, and judged by individuals of their own race. No longer will any race be exploited for the benefit of another in America.

The National Justice Party Founding Council

Mike Peinovich, Chairman
Tony Hovater, Chief of Staff
Joseph Jordan
Michael McKevitt
Warren Balogh
Alan Balogh

8: Whiteness Pt 1

Does Johnson's definition of nationalism square with the Bible's definition of nationalism?  So far, I think so.  I know it squares more with it than civic nationalism or Christian nationalism does.  Nonetheless, this section was difficult for me to understand because I am not yet familiar enough with the terminology and opposing arguments.  I had a hard time understanding what he meant in this section by "generic white people."  Nevertheless, I am pushing through the first part of "Basic Concepts" expecting to learn more as I go.  
https://www.achieveriasclasses.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/05/nationalism-300x300.jpg
As seen at achieveriasclasses.com

These lessons are part of a wider study seeking to answer a timely but age old question:

Psalms 11:3 If the foundations are destroyed, what can the righteous do?”

God set boundaries to protect us from evil. Underneath each boundary lays a foundation. When evil men redefine biological sex (Gen 1:27), they strike at that foundation. When evil men redefine marriage (Gen 2:23-24), they strike at that foundation. When evil men redefine nation (Gen 10:5), they strike at that foundation. When the footing is shattered, people lose hope and become easy prey to evil forces.

When God freed the sons of Israel from Egypt (Ex 1:1) He continued His promise to make them into a nation (Gen 12:1-2). He taught them as they marched through the desert to the Promised Land. He gave them their first lessons on nationhood. He reminded them of their history and origin. In the first 11 chapters, and of first importance, were the definitions of nation, marriage, and biological sex. From chapter 12 on, to the end of the New Testament, God persistently impressed these definitions upon His chosen, but deviant, people. His definitions were not contrary to the nature of things. This was His plan and means of bringing the world a Savior and conquering evil. What would have happened had He not held to these definitions or worked against His own laws of nature?

I hope to bring light upon these questions and others like them in this series of studies called What is a Nation? To explore this broader topic I will review a number of books, the first of which is The White Nationalist Manifesto by Greg Johnson. I will add some comments and study questions to each post to turn them into short 10-20 minute lessons. To go to the beginning of this series click here.


Basic Concepts

Whiteness

An obvious line of attack against White Nationalism is the claim that the very concept of whiteness is problematic. We will deal with four such objections. First, the concept of whiteness is supposed to be politically unnecessary. Second, whiteness is alleged to be subversive of ethnic identity. Third, whiteness is said to be a social construct, not a real natural kind. Fourth, the viability of White Nationalism is said to depend on an airtight definition of whiteness, which is elusive.

Is Whiteness Necessary?

A common misunderstanding or misrepresentation of White Nationalism is to claim that the very concept is meaningless, because white people are not interested in “white” nationalism. We are interested in American or French or German or Italian nationalism. On this account, German nationalism is for Germans and White Nationalism is for generic white people.[1] But there are no generic white people, so White Nationalism is a political program without a constituency, a concept without a referent.

But White Nationalism is not nationalism for generic white people. White Nationalism just means ethnonationalism for all specific white peoples. White Nationalists wish to preserve, restore, or create sovereign racially and ethnically homogeneous homelands for all white peoples who aspire to self-determination.

There really is no such thing as a generic white person. All white people belong to specific ethnic groups. Even in borderline cases, where the children of couples from different ethnic groups are brought up with two cultures, and even two mother tongues, we are still talking about blends of specific ethnic groups.

What differentiates white ethnic groups? There are subracial differences among Europeans, and some nations have well-defined “typical” subracial types, for instance, typical Norwegians and Finns. But other nations encompass a range of subracial types, for instance England and Italy. In short, some white ethnic groups are more biologically homogeneous than others. Thus what is essential in differentiating white nations are their distinct languages, cultures, and histories.[2]

Since people typically marry within their faith, religious boundaries can beget ethnic boundaries. Even peoples who are genetically very similar and speak the same language—the English and the Irish, or the Serbs, Bosnians, and Croats—can be deeply divided by religion.

It is often said that White Nationalism makes sense only in colonial melting pots like the United States and Canada, in which different European ethnic groups have blended together. This is untrue. The blending of Old-World nations did not produce generic white people. It produced new ethnic groups: Americans, Canadians, Quebecois, Australians, Afrikaners, etc.

If Americans and Canadians were just generic white people, there would be no differences between them. But there are differences, and these differences are linguistic and cultural. Thus from a White Nationalist point of view, there is really no difference between European and colonial nations. We stand for the self-determination of all white nations, all over the world, not just in Europe.

Since there are no generic white people—at least outside Plato’s world of forms or wherever else one finds universals—why speak of “white” nationalism at all? Why not just speak of specific national groups and be done with it?

There are five compelling reasons why we cannot avoid talking about the white race.[3]

5 Reasons Why We Must Talk About The White Race

(1) It is Unavoidable

First, let’s say we decide to avoid talk of whiteness and instead speak only of promoting the national interests of the French, Germans, Americans, Poles, etc., while studiously avoiding any discussion of such nations as Turkey, India, or China. One has to ask: What does the first list have in common, and why are the other countries left out? The answer to both questions is that we are concerned with white nations, as opposed to non-white ones.

One might try to dodge this accusation of “racism” by speaking of “Western civilization” or “Christendom,” but not all European peoples are “Western,” and vast numbers of Christians are non-whites.

Basically, all attempts to avoid the word “white” are just euphemisms—ways of talking around sensitive topics, like sex or excrement, born from a fear of violating cultural taboos about polite speech. But people who can only speak of race in euphemisms are not yet ready for the struggle. It is noble to wish to save white people, but how can one muster the courage to save the white race if one can’t even bring oneself to utter the word “white”? In order to battle the forces promoting white genocide, we are going to have to be more than a bit impolite.

(2) The Double Standard

Second, if the only motive for white skittishness about speaking in terms of race is a cultural taboo against white “racism,” we need to understand the origins and functions of this taboo.[4]

All the other races can, of course, speak in terms of racial identity and interests. And to my knowledge, Black Nationalists who speak of black power and black interests are never met with the argument, “But Black Nationalism is meaningless, because there are no generic black people, just various black tribes and nations.”

Furthermore, when non-whites—or self-loathing whites—lecture us about “white privilege” and recite endless litanies of white crimes, nobody ever says, “Your accusations are meaningless. There is no such thing as a generic white person.” It seems that whiteness is a completely unproblematic category when people wish to impute blame to us. It is only problematic when whites want to defend ourselves: when we wish to affirm our identity, take pride in our achievements, take stock of our interests, and take our own side in ethnic conflicts.

This taboo against any self-assertive appeal to whiteness is blatantly unfair, and whites can only lose if we continue to honor it. Obviously, this taboo was devised to systematically disadvantage whites. Thus we would be fools to continue honoring it.

(3) The Present Political Systems

Third, even though there is more to being American or English or Swedish than simply being white, we still have to talk about whiteness, because the present political system insists that it is possible for people of all races to be American or English or Swedish. For a very long time, it went without saying that only white people could be part of any European nation. But multiculturalism and civic nationalism seek to divorce European national identities from whiteness.[5]

Thus to save our nations—and through them our race as a whole—we have to talk explicitly about whiteness.

We have to assert that being white is a necessary condition of belonging to any European national group, although of course we acknowledge that a shared language, culture, and history are also necessary.

We must assert that non-whites can be members of white nations only by virtue of legal fictions. Not every white man is a Swede, but every Swede is a white man.

(4) Evil Multiethnic Empires

Fourth, simple ethnic nationalism is not always sufficient to ensure either narrow national or broader racial interests. It is perfectly natural, normal, and right for individuals and nations to take care of their own people first. And when multiethnic empires or multinational bodies like the European Union work against the ethnic interests of specific peoples, then the “petty” nationalism of Scotland or Hungary or Poland is entirely legitimate.[6] But when petty ethnic nationalism or imperialism lead to wars between European nations, or prevent coordinated European responses to common threats, then a broader sense of pan-European racial solidarity becomes necessary to secure racial survival and flourishing.

Creating such solidarity is imperative. Thus we must emphasize all the things that Europeans have in common, and beyond all the differences of language, culture, and religion, the deepest root of European identity and solidarity is racial.[7] All Europeans share common ancestors. We are one extended family. In order to ensure our common destiny, we need to overcome silly taboos about acknowledging and drawing strength from our common racial origins.

(5) Evil Prescedents

Fifth, colonial societies from the start involved racial distinctions between European colonists and indigenous non-whites. In some cases, African slaves and South-and East-Asian coolies were added to the mix. In such an environment, it is natural for whites not to see different nations and tribes (Aztec, Mayan), but simply different racial groupings (Indians, blacks, etc.), and it is equally natural for non-whites to see Europeans of different national origins simply as whites. Indeed, in the colonial context of racial polarization and struggle, when whites must present a unified front, the remnants of Old-World ethnic differences are actually harmful to white interests.

But now that Europe itself is being colonized by non-whites, the same process of racial polarization is taking place there as well. Blacks, Arabs, and South Asians in Europe do not see Frenchmen, Englishmen, and Germans. They simply see white men. And we simply see non-whites. Our differences do not matter to them, and their differences do not matter to us. As racial tensions increase in Europe, our people will realize that they are not being attacked as Frenchmen or Germans, but simply as white men. And when Europeans resist ethnic displacement, they will increasingly regard their race as their nation and their skin as their uniform. The sooner we see ourselves as white people, united by common enemies and challenges, sharing a common origin and a common destiny, the sooner we will be equal to the tasks facing us.

Click on the "The White Nationalist Manifesto" tag below to see all the posts in this series. To go to the start of this series click here.

Questions & Notes

  1. True or False: White Nationalism is for generic white people.

  2. What is essential in differentiating white nations are their distinct _________, _________, and histories.

  3. List the five reasons why we must talk about the White race.

  4. If the only motive for white skittishness about speaking in terms of race is a cultural taboo against white “racism,” we need to understand the _________ and _________ of this taboo.

  5. Multiculturalism and civic nationalism seek to _________ European national identities from whiteness.

  6. Greg Johnson, “‘Let’s Call the Whole Thing Off’: In Defense of ‘Petty’ Nationalism,” in Truth, Justice, & a Nice White Country (San Francisco: Counter-Currents, 2015).

  7. The deepest root of European identity and solidarity is _________.

What Is Truth? Pt 7

Today’s Agenda

News & Updates

 Does anyone have any news or things they would like to say?

Telegram

My Church

 Knowing what you believe and why you believe gives courage and conviction like this.

Review

3: Antropology – Who is Man?

Worksheets to fill in as you watch.

7: The Ethnostate

Dealing with cults is a given after one becomes a Christian. Every Christian should take a course or read some books on how to deal with cults. Cults typically borrow and twist Christian terminology. The use of common Christian terms confuses weak Christians setting them up to be captured by false doctrine. As long as these terms are misunderstood, the cult survives. By understanding where the Christian terms came from and what they really mean leads to deliverance and the weakening of the cult.

I see a parallel phenomenon regarding nationalism.  The terms defining State are just as important as the terms defining Church.  God created State.  Man redefines it.  In this chapter, consideration is given to this terminology.  What is meant by nation?  What is meant by sovereignty?  What is meant by race?  What is meant by ethnicity?  All of these terms get jumbled together and twisted for the same reasons cult leaders jumble together and twist standard terms within Christianity.  In this chapter Johnson separates the terms to help understand their meaning as they pertain to White Nationalism.  

https://external-content.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=https%3A%2F%2Ftse3.mm.bing.net%2Fth%3Fid%3DOIP.Qc7w1RhCDJENXWX2pGCRlgHaDj%26pid%3DApi&f=1&ipt=478287d3a77c5377245b64be2cd793332389aa22673f59a7e833649a8049a50f&ipo=images

These lessons are part of a wider study seeking to answer a timely but age old question:

Psalms 11:3 If the foundations are destroyed, what can the righteous do?”

God set boundaries to protect us from evil. Underneath each boundary lays a foundation. When evil men redefine biological sex (Gen 1:27), they strike at that foundation. When evil men redefine marriage (Gen 2:23-24), they strike at that foundation. When evil men redefine nation (Gen 10:5), they strike at that foundation. When the footing is shattered, people lose hope and become easy prey to evil forces.

When God freed the sons of Israel from Egypt (Ex 1:1) He continued His promise to make them into a nation (Gen 12:1-2). He taught them as they marched through the desert to the Promised Land. He gave them their first lessons on nationhood. He reminded them of their history and origin. In the first 11 chapters, and of first importance, were the definitions of nation, marriage, and biological sex. From chapter 12 on, to the end of the New Testament, God persistently impressed these definitions upon His chosen, but deviant, people. His definitions were not contrary to the nature of things. This was His plan and means of bringing the world a Savior and conquering evil. What would have happened had He not held to these definitions or worked against His own laws of nature?

I hope to bring light upon these questions and others like them in this series of studies called What is a Nation? To explore this broader topic I will review a number of books, the first of which is The White Nationalist Manifesto by Greg Johnson. I will add some comments and study questions to each post to turn them into short 10-20 minute lessons. To go to the beginning of this series click here.


The Ethnostate

The Sovereignty State

White Nationalists advocate not just racially but also ethnically homogeneous sovereign homelands, i.e., ethnostates. Sovereignty is a principle of international law. A sovereign state controls its own territory and internal affairs. It does not have to answer to any higher political authority. Sovereign states are not allowed to meddle in the internal affairs of other sovereign states. Sovereign states, moreover, regardless of their size and power, are regarded as equal under international law.

Although peoples have been fighting to establish and preserve sovereignty throughout history, the concept of sovereignty is a modern one, generally regarded as being established in 1648 by the Treaty of Westphalia, which ended the Thirty Years’ War between Catholics and Protestants that had devastated Central Europe.[1]

The Treaty of Westphalia established the principle that each state would adopt the church—Catholic or Protestant—of the ruling prince, and other states had to accept this. This was a pragmatic measure to end decades of religious conflict caused by the diversity of religious confessions in the same state and the church’s claims to supranational authority, which licensed interventions into the religious affairs of states.

In short, the concept of sovereignty arose out of the necessity of ensuring the right to differ. By making social peace more important than questions of religious truth, the emergence of the modern concept of sovereignty marked the downfall of Christendom and the rise of a new hegemonic value system, liberalism.

My Comment

How is the concept of sovereignty linked to the concept of freedom of conscience, freedom of speech, and freedom of reach? Is the role of the Church to ensure religious freedom or is that the role of the State? Is the role of the State to ensure religious truth or is that the role of the Church?

At first, the boundaries of sovereign states were largely determined by the dynastic politics of Europe’s ruling houses. But in the late 18th century, with the revival of classical republicanism, the idea of the nation-state emerged, which held that the proper sovereign entity is a people united by language, culture, and common descent.[2]

The Nation-State

Strictly understood, a nation-state is the same thing as an ethnostate, since the English word nation derives from the Latin natio, which refers to a group related by common descent.[3] But in common parlance, countries like the United Kingdom, Spain, France, Belgium, Canada, and Switzerland are referred to as nation-states, even though they are multiethnic, quasi-imperial societies.

The confusion is compounded by the practice of using nation to refer to all sovereign entities, including multiethnic ones, for instance when we talk about the United Nations, international law, or international trade—all of which deal with states, most of which are not nation-states.

The Ethnostate

Thus we need the ideas of the ethnostate and ethnonationalism, to emphasize ethnicity as the principle of unity of a sovereign state—even though ethnos is just the Greek equivalent of natio, which makes ethnonationalism a rather redundant term.[4]

Civic Nationalism

Ethnonationalism is contrasted with civic nationalism, in which the principle of unity is subjection to a common system of laws or the profession of a shared civic creed. Civic nationalism need not exist in a multiracial or multicultural society, but the primary reason that civic nationalist creeds are promulgated is to deal with the absence of organic, ethnic unity in a society.[5]

In his book The Ethnostate, Wilmot Robertson offers a persuasive case for ethnonationalism.[6] Ethnonationalism preserves distinct races, subraces, and cultures and allows them to evolve without the friction, distortions, and conflicts that inevitably emerge when different races and cultures are forced to share the same territory and political system.[7]

Ethnonationalism presupposes that racial and cultural diversity are goods worth preserving. It also presupposes that this is a universal principle. To say that racial and cultural diversity are universally valuable means, first, that if a principle is objectively true, it is true for all peoples. Second, it implies that every nation ought to perpetuate itself through time and, if necessary, force other nations to respect its vital interests. Beyond that, it also implies that each nation should respect the vital interests of other nations not simply because they are willing to fight to assert themselves, but because we value the differences of others and respect their right to differ as a matter of principle.

Ethnonationalism should be seen as a right not an obligation.[8] It is not a moral duty that needs to be adopted by every ethnic group, regardless of circumstances. It is simply a highly pragmatic tool to decrease conflict and promote genetic and cultural diversity. But ethnonationalism is not the only solution to the problems faced by multiethnic societies. For instance, Switzerland is a harmonious multiethnic society due to its decentralized, federal political system in which its 26 cantons enjoy a great deal of autonomy.

In societies like the United States and Canada, with tiny aboriginal relict populations, the best solution is the ethnic reservation where they can govern their internal affairs. Not every tribe in the Amazon or Siberia needs full sovereignty and a seat at the United Nations.

Yet another solution is the uncontested supremacism of a dominant group, in which minorities simply acquiesce to being second-class citizens or resident aliens. Such populations would enjoy the same human rights as foreign travelers, but no civil rights, meaning that all political power would lie in the hands of the dominant people. The dominant people would not just be politically but also culturally supreme, so such a society might not be entirely ethnically French or English or American (meaning white American), but it could be normatively French or English or American, and everyone within its borders would accept the normative supremacy of the dominant culture—or leave.

But whenever a people aspires to a sovereign homeland so that it can perpetuate its genetic and cultural heritage without interference, ethnonationalists believe that it has the right to do so, and nobody else has the right to stand in its way.

Political Unification

Why should sovereignty reside in ethnostates rather than in more inclusive orders, such as the European Union or the “Imperium” envisioned by Francis Parker Yockey? Or, more grandly, the “Eurosiberia” of Jean Thiriart and Guillaume Faye?[9] Or, grander still, the union of the whole Northern Hemisphere, the “Borean Alliance” or “Septentrion” of Jean Mabire and others?[10]

The principal benefits attributed to political unification are (1) preventing whites from fighting with one another, and (2) protecting whites from other racial and civilizational power blocs like China, India, and the Muslim world. These goals are important, but I think that political unification is not needed to attain them. Beyond that, it entails serious risks of its own.

Alliances

The essential feature of any scheme of political unification is the transfer of sovereignty from the constituent parts to the new whole.[11] If sovereignty remains with individual states, then one does not have political unification. Instead, one has an alliance between states, or a treaty organization like NATO, or an intergovernmental organization like the United Nations, or an economic customs union like the European Common Market, or a hybrid customs union and intergovernmental organization like the European Union.

But political unification is not necessary to prevent whites from fighting with one another or to secure whites from external threats. These aims can be attained through alliances and treaties between sovereign states. A European equivalent of NATO, which provides Europe with a common defense and immigration/emigration policy and mediates conflicts between sovereign member states would be sufficient, and it would have the added value of preserving the cultural and subracial distinctness of different European groups.

The threat of non-white blocs should not be exaggerated. France, the UK, or Russia alone are militarily strong enough to prevail against anything that Africa, India, or the Muslim world can throw at us—provided, of course, that whites are again morally strong enough to take their own side in a fight. A simple alliance of European states would be able to deter any Chinese aggression. Thus a defensive alliance between European states would be sufficient to preserve Europe from all outside forces, whether they be armed powers or stateless masses of refugees and immigrants.

Creating Homogeneous Ethnostates

As for white fratricide: the best way to defuse white ethnic conflicts is not to combat “petty” nationalism but to take it to its logical conclusion. If different ethnic groups yoked to the same system are growing restive, then they should be allowed to go their own ways. Through moving borders and moving peoples, homogeneous ethnostates can be created, in which each self-conscious people can speak its own language and practice its own customs free from outside interference. Such a process could be mediated by a European treaty organization, which could ensure that the process is peaceful, orderly, humane, and as fair as possible to all parties.

International crises are by their very nature interruptions in the normal order of things, which also means that their duration is limited, so eventually everything goes back to normal. Military alliances are also shifting and temporary things, but political unification aims at permanence and is very difficult to undo.

Does it really make sense to make permanent changes in the political order to deal with unusual and temporary problems?

The ancient Romans appointed dictators in times of emergency, but only for a limited time, because emergencies are temporary, and a permanent dictatorship is both unnecessary and risky. The same is true of European political unification.

But what would happen if a sovereign European state signed a treaty to host a gigantic Chinese military base? Or if it fell into the hands of plutocrats who started importing cheap non-white labor? Clearly such policies would endanger all of Europe, therefore it is not just the business of whatever rogue state adopts those policies. What could the rest of Europe do to stop this? Isn’t this why we need a politically unified Europe?

The answer, of course, is what all sovereign states do when they face existential conflicts of interest: diplomatic pressure, economic sanctions, and, if those fail, war. Other states would be perfectly justified in declaring war against the rogue state, deposing the offending regime, and removing non-Europeans from its territory. Then they would set up a new sovereign regime and go home.

European Unification

The idea that we need European unification to prevent such wars is absurd. Again, it makes no sense to make permanent changes to solve temporary problems, and it makes no sense to, in effect, declare war on all sovereign states today because we might have to declare war on one of them tomorrow.

Political unification is not only unnecessary, it is dangerous, simply because if it fails, it would fail catastrophically. It is not wise to put all one’s eggs in one basket, or to grow only one crop, or to breed a “homogeneous European man,” for when the basket breaks, or blight strikes the potato crop, or a new pandemic like the Spanish flu breaks out, one is liable to lose everything.

A politically unified Europe would necessarily be ruled by a small, polyglot elite that is remote from and unresponsive to the provinces and their “petty” concerns, which they would take great pride in denigrating in the name of the greater good. If that elite became infected by an anti-European memetic virus—or corrupted by alien elites—it would have the power to destroy Europe, and since there would be no sovereign states to say no, nothing short of a revolution could stop them.

Indeed, the leadership of the present-day European Union is infected by just such a memetic virus, and it is doing all it can to flood Europe with non-whites. The only thing stopping them is the fact that the European Union does not have sovereign power, and stubborn sovereign ethnostates like Poland, Hungary, the Czech Republic, and Slovakia are saying no.

Even if a European Union were the only way to stop another Europe-wide war, the terrible truth is that, despite all the losses, Europe managed to recover from two World Wars. But it would not recover from race-replacement immigration promoted by a sovereign European Union.

Moreover, at a certain point, the EU is going to face a choice. If Poland or Hungary vetoes non-white immigration once and for all, the EU will either have to accept its dissolution or use coercion to hold itself together. In short, the EU may very well cause rather than prevent the next European “brothers’ war.”

A politically unified Europe would eliminate the principle of the equality of sovereign nations under international law. But it would not eliminate the existence of nations. And in a common market and political system, certain national groups—principally the Germans—would have systematic advantages and end up on top. This means that a unified Europe would end up being a de facto German empire, since Germany has the largest population and the strongest economy. Does anyone really think that the French or the Poles would relish living under the hegemony of priggish self-loathing German technocrats like Angela Merkel? This too is a recipe for hatred and violence, not love and harmony.

Finally, if Rightwing proponents of European unification hold that it is not really a problem for Greeks and Swedes, Poles and Portuguese to live under a single sovereign state, on what grounds, exactly, are they complaining about multiculturalism and diversity? If the EU can encompass the differences between the Irish and the Greeks, why can’t it encompass the differences between Greeks and Turks, or Greeks and Syrians, etc.?

The ethnonationalist vision is of a Europe—and a worldwide European diaspora—of a hundred flags, in which every self-conscious nation has at least one sovereign homeland, each of which will strive for the highest degree of homogeneity, allowing the greatest diversity of cultures, languages, dialects, and institutions to flourish. Wherever a citizen turns, he will encounter his own flesh and blood, people who speak his language, people whose minds he can understand. Social life will be warm and welcoming, not alienating and unsettling as in multicultural societies. Because citizens will have a strong sense of identity, they will know the difference between their own people and foreigners. Because they will control their own borders and destinies, they can afford to be hospitable to diplomats, businessmen, tourists, students, and even a few expatriates, who will behave like grateful guests. These ethnostates will be good neighbors to one another, because they have good fences between them and homes to return to when commerce with outsiders becomes tiring.

The citizens of these states will be deeply steeped in their mother tongues and local cultures, but they will also be educated in the broader tradition of European high culture. They will all strive for fluency in at least one other European language. They will appreciate that all Europeans have common roots, common enemies, and a common destiny. But these commonalities are, and will remain, secondary and remote compared to linguistic and cultural differences.

The leadership caste of each ethnostate will be selected to be both deeply rooted in its own homeland but also to have the broadest possible sense of European solidarity. This ethos will allow political cooperation between all European peoples through intergovernmental and treaty organizations, as well as ad hoc alliances. And, since scientific truth and technological achievements are universally valid, there should be pan-European cooperation in promoting science, technology, national defense, ecological initiatives, and space exploration.

Ethnonationalist Principle

Is ethnonationalism for everyone? Yes and no.

On the one hand, we believe that all peoples have the right to their own homogeneous sovereign homelands, wherever that is possible. We want ethnostates for ourselves, and on the Lockean principle that we will take what we need for ourselves but leave other people the option of doing the same, we wish all peoples well and will honor the ethnonationalist principle wherever it is asserted, even when it might be more convenient to just boss people around and take their resources.

On the other hand, we recognize that not all peoples have an equal capacity for self-government. Successful ethnostates are certainly possible in East Asia, where today Japan and South Korea are among the most homogeneous and advanced societies on the planet. But ethnonationalism is not really possible in the racially mixed societies of Latin America, where the best option is probably a more benevolent version of the present system of rule by European-descended elites. Nor is ethnonationalism possible among the most primitive tribal peoples of the world in Africa, Amazonia, Micronesia, or Papua. Such peoples require benevolent paternalism and ethnic reservations.

But this talk of preserving the existence and distinctness of primitive peoples around the world is somewhat grandiose and premature, given that it is our existence, not theirs, that is threatened by the present global dispensation. When an airplane cabin loses pressure, you are supposed to secure your own oxygen mask before helping others. For if you die by putting the needs of others first, the people who depend on you will die as well. Once White Nationalists secure preserves for our own race, then we can benevolently entertain similar arrangements for other peoples.

Click on the "The White Nationalist Manifesto" tag below to see all the posts in this series. To go to the start of this series click here.

Questions & Notes

  1. Although peoples have been fighting to establish and preserve sovereignty throughout history, the concept of sovereignty is a modern one, generally regarded as being established in _________ by the Treaty of Westphalia.

  2. But in the late 18th century, with the revival of classical _________, the idea of the nation-state emerged, which held that the proper sovereign entity is a people united by language, culture, and common descent.

  3. Strictly understood, a nation-state is the same thing as an _________, since the English word nation derives from the Latin natio, which refers to a group related by common descent.

  4. We need the ideas of the ethnostate and ethnonationalism, to _________ ethnicity as the principle of unity of a sovereign state.

  5. The primary reason that civic nationalist creeds are promulgated is to deal with the absence of _________.

  6. Wilmot Robertson, The Ethnostate: An Unblinkered Prospectus for an Advanced Statecraft (Cape Canaveral, Fl.: Howard Allen, 1992).

  7. _________ preserves distinct races, subraces, and cultures and allows them to evolve without the friction, distortions, and conflicts that inevitably emerge when different races and cultures are forced to share the same territory and political system.

  8. Ethnonationalism should be seen as a right not an obligation. What is the difference?

  9. See Guillaume Faye, “The Geopolitics of Ethnopolitics: The New Concept of ‘Eurosiberia,’” Counter-Currents, August 25, 2010. Also see the articles tagged Jean Thiriart at Counter-Currents.

  10. See Greg Johnson, “The ‘Borean Alliance,’” Counter-Currents, June 20, 2011.

  11. The essential feature of any scheme of political unification is the transfer of _________ from the constituent parts to the new whole.

34: Jesus as the Fulfiller of the Old Testament

This book has been a great companion book as I read through the Old Testament.  By comparing Old Testament statements next to their contemporary counterparts, the differences are compelling.  If the same amount of criticism and skepticism were directed at these, they would give Christianity a pass.  The bottom line to any truth claim is does it work.  Like the Apostle Paul discovered, 

Romans 1:16 For I am not ashamed of the gospel, for it is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes, to the Jew first and also to the Greek.

It is like Keith Green said, "I know God is real because He changed me."

http://www.paulnoll.com/Books/5000-Words/5000-pic-Christ.jpg

  This is a review of Is God a Moral Monster by Paul Copan with study questions added to turn them into lessons.  These lessons are part of a wider study on Sanctification by Faith which has as its goal the fulfillment of Gal 5:16

But I say, walk by the Spirit, and you will not carry out the desire of the flesh. 

  Because sanctification depends upon faith, doubt will be seen as a hindrance.  Misunderstanding can lead to doubt as well as ignorance, deception, and experience like - it doesn't feel right.  This lesson seeks to combat ignorance, deception, and misunderstanding.  By erasing these, our faith is free to function at a higher level.  

  I’ve set all of these studies in a specific order so that anyone may easily build on the foundation of Christ with the finest materials - gold, silver, and precious stones (1 Cor 3:10-13).  God has gifted the Church with amazing evangelists, pastors, and teachers to do the mining so that we have these materials to complete the building project. (Eph 4:11-16).  I invite you to study along with me.  You can see an overview of the complete Sanctification by Faith study here.  To go to the start of the current lesson (Is God a Moral Monster) click here. 

Now may the God of peace Himself sanctify you entirely; and may your spirit and soul and body be preserved complete, without blame at the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ. 1 Thess 5:23 

20: We Have Moved beyond This God (Haven’t We?) Jesus as the Fulfiller of the Old Testament

The Gifts of the Jews

On February 16, 1809, John Adams wrote a letter to F. A. Vanderkemp in which he insisted that “the Hebrews have done more to civilize man than any other nation.” Not only did their laws help bring a civilizing influence to the nations, but they preserved and propagated to humankind “the doctrine of a supreme, intelligent, wise, almighty sovereign of the universe, which I believe to be the great essential principle of all morality, and consequently of all civilization.”[1]

In his fascinating book The Gifts of the Jews, Thomas Cahill reinforces this argument. This ancient nomadic desert tribe helped introduce to humanity a sense of history-a past, present, and future-and the idea that history is going somewhere, that it has a point.[2] For the Mesopotamians, Egyptians, and other ancient peoples, time was cyclical—the same old same old. We could say the same about many Eastern philosophies and religions today; they espouse the doctrine of karma with its reincarnation cycles of birth, death, and rebirth.

What’s more, the Old Testament reveals a God who has a global (cosmic) plan and who involves humans as history-shaping participants in that plan. Yes, humans matter. The Old Testament’s genealogies reflect the important role that humans play in the unfolding of God’s purposes.

On top of this, the Jews introduced a robust monotheism. Rather than being just one god in a pantheon of others or just a regional deity, Yahweh was/is the only deity who matters. Indeed, he is the only one who exists. Along with this, the Jews introduced a new way to experience reality. There is a divine being who regularly, personally engages humans, whose choices really make a difference. Human decision making has great significance, and God interweaves these choices into his overarching plans. We’re not the pawns of fate or at the mercy of the whims of the gods. On the other hand, humans aren’t so powerful that they can manipulate God to do their bidding. These themes are some of the gifts of the Jews to the rest of the world.[3]

The Gifts of the Christians

Horrendous, anti-Christian actions have been carried out in the name of Christ: the Crusades, the Inquisition, witch-hunting, or fighting between Catholics and Protestants in Europe could be named. Not that Jesus wants to be identified with this kind of religious zealotry. Many things can be done in God’s name that cause it to be “blasphemed among the Gentiles” (Rom. 2:24).

The problem with Christopher Hitchens’s claim that “religion poisons everything” is that it’s both vague and extreme. The term religion in the existing literature is notoriously vague and difficult to define. And if Dennett and Hitchens suggest that Stalin was somehow “religious,” then at this point we throw up our hands in bewilderment. Hitchens’s statement about religion’s noxious influence is also extreme in its lopsidedness.[4] Does religion poison everything and bring no benefits whatsoever? More thoughtful, sophisticated atheists would strongly disagree. As atheist philosopher Walter Sinnott-Armstrong responds, this religion-poisons-everything slogan is “inaccurate and insulting.” He advises atheists not to cheer on or laugh at Hitchens’s jokes, nor should they remain silent. To Sinnott-Armstrong, Hitchens’s critique of religion is “like a senile relative” who is constantly making “bizarre statements”; his assessment is neither fair nor very illuminating.[5]

Ironically, the New Atheists’ moral grenades lobbed against the Christian faith in the name of morality are actually historically founded upon the very faith they criticize. Historians have documented that the values of human rights, tolerance, social justice, and racial reconciliation are the legacy of the Christian faith, not some secular Enlightenment ideals. For all her flaws, the Christian church has played an important part in bringing huge benefits to civilization. This impact has often been inspired by devotion to Christ, which overflows to love for one’s neighbor to the glory of God.

These documented achievements include the following:[6] [7]

Eradicating slavery: As the Christian faith spread into barbarian Europe after the fall of Rome, the practice of slavery dwindled. Slavery virtually died out in Europe by the Middle Ages, when Europe was well Christianized. When slavery reappeared, it was strongly opposed by dedicated believers among the Mennonites and Quakers as well as by Christian leaders such as theologian Richard Baxter, John Wesley, and William Wilberforce.
Opposing infanticide and rescuing infants from exposure: This practice, common among the Greeks and Romans, was outlawed in the fourth century, under the influence of Christians.
Eliminating gladiatorial games: These brutal games usually involved slaves and criminals. They were outlawed in the late fourth century in the East and the early fifth century in the West.
Building hospitals and hospices: Unlike Greeks and Romans, early Christians were concerned about health care, looking after the sick and the dying. Once the Christian faith became official in the empire, this ministry expanded considerably. The Council of Nicea (AD 325) commissioned bishops to establish hospice care in every city where a church building existed. The first hospital was built under St. Basil in Caesarea (369). By the Middle Ages, hospitals existed throughout Europe. (Think too of Florence Nightingale, the founding of the Red Cross, and so on.)
Elevating women’s status/rights: Although feminists claim that the Christian faith puts women down and keeps them under, history shows the opposite. Though women have been routinely oppressed in most cultures, we see something different in Jesus’s treatment of women (e.g., the Samaritan woman in John 4, or Mary and Martha in Luke 10:38-42). Luke’s Gospel highlights the prominent place of women in Jesus’s life and ministry. Early Christians routinely protected women and children from neglect and abuse.
Founding Europe’s and North America’s great universities: The Sorbonne, Oxford, Harvard, Yale, and Princeton are some of the many notable universities established to God’s glory. In Europe, many universities sprang forth from medieval monasteries; in America, the earliest and most notable universities began as institutions for training pastors and missionaries.
Writing extraordinary works of literature: The remarkable literature of Christians inspired by their faith ranges from Augustine’s City of God and Eusebius’s Ecclesiastical History to Dante’s Comedy and John Milton’s Paradise Lost to the works of J. R. R. Tolkein, C. S. Lewis, Flannery O’Connor, and Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn.
Engaging in/writing about philosophy and theology and the life of reason: Some of the leading representatives include Augustine, Anselm, Thomas Aquinas, Blaise Pascal, Søren Kierkegaard, and Jonathan Edwards. Today, organizations such as the Society of Christian Philosophers and the Evangelical Philosophical Society attest to this ongoing tradition.
Creating beautiful masterpieces of art, sculpture, and architecture: Think of Michelangelo, Rembrandt van Rijn, Peter Paul Rubens, or the Byzantine and gothic cathedrals.
Establishing modern science: Modern science had its roots in the biblical conviction that the world was created by a rational God. For this reason, it was orderly and predictable, and it could be studied and understood by human minds. We could mention Isaac Newton, Galileo Galilei, Nicholas Copernicus, Johannes Kepler, Michael Faraday, William T. Kelvin, Robert Boyle, Anton Lavoisier, and many others.
Composing brilliant music: The works of Johann Sebastian Bach, Georg F. Handel, Felix Mendelssohn, and Franz Joseph Haydn speak for themselves.
Advocating human rights, democracy, political freedoms, concern for the poor: These themes are rooted in the biblical ideals that all humans are made in God’s image, that they have dignity and worth, and that they are equal before the law.

It’s difficult to exaggerate the impact that Jesus of Nazareth has had on history and the countless lives impacted by this one man’s life and teaching—indeed, the transforming power of his cross and resurrection. The historian Jaroslav Pelikan remarked that by the changing of the calendar (to BC and AD according to “the year of our Lord”) and other ways, “everyone is compelled to acknowledge that because of Jesus of Nazareth history will never be the same.”[8]

Dawkins is quite wrong in asserting that the Christian faith—like Islam—was spread by the sword.[9] If he took an honest look at Christian history, he would have to acknowledge that the earliest Christian movement was one of the politically and socially disempowered. This movement was first called “the Way” (Acts 19:9, 23; 22:4; 24:14, 22) in honor of its Savior (John 14:6), and it often gathered to itself slaves and members of the lower classes. In the first three centuries, the church grew by deeds of love and mercy and the proclamation of the Good News of Jesus. Holy wars had no place in this nonviolent movement.

Rodney Stark—the respected eight-hundred-pound gorilla among sociologists—shows in his book The Victory of Reason how the “success of the West, including the rise of science, rested entirely on religious foundations, and the people who brought it about were devout Christians.”[10] But don’t just take a Christian sociologist’s word for it. Jürgen Habermas is one of Europe’s most prominent philosophers today. Another fact about Habermas: he’s a dyed-in-the-wool atheist. Yet he highlights the inescapable historical fact that the biblical faith was the profound influence in shaping civilization. Consider carefully his assessment:[11]

Christianity has functioned for the normative self-understanding of modernity as more than just a precursor or a catalyst. Egalitarian universalism, from which sprang the ideas of freedom and a social solidarity, of an autonomous conduct of life and emancipation, the individual morality of conscience, human rights, and democracy, is the direct heir to the Judaic ethic of justice and the Christian ethic of love. This legacy, substantially unchanged, has been the object of continual critical appropriation and reinterpretation. To this day, there is no alternative to it. And in light of current challenges of a postnational constellation, we continue to draw on the substance of this heritage. Everything else is just idle postmodern talk.[12]

In the words of human rights scholar Max Stackhouse, “Intellectual honesty demands recognition of the fact that what passes as ‘secular,’ ‘Western’ principles of basic human rights developed nowhere else than out of key strands of the biblically-rooted religion.”[13]

Consider three fundamental historical facts.

(1)Talk of natural right(s) emerged in the Catholic theology of the Middle Ages, a language which itself was built on the biblical understanding of the image of God in all humans.
(2)The chief movers who established the Universal Declaration on Human Rights of 1948 (which speaks of humans being “endowed with reason and conscience”) were primarily church coalitions and individual Christian leaders who worked closely with some Jewish rabbis to create a “new world order” of human rights.
(3)Even the allegedly secular Enlightenment’s universal human rights emphasis has deep theological roots; this is quite obvious in the two leading documents of the eighteenth century: the Declaration of Independence (which speaks of humans being “endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights”) and the French Declaration of the Rights of Man and Citizen (affirming human rights “in the presence and under the auspices” of God, “the Supreme Being”). In short, the Judeo-Christian imprint on human rights in the present is vital for correcting much secularist religion bashing.[14]

Even non-Westerners have come to recognize the remarkable impact of the Christian faith in the West. Time magazine’s well-respected correspondent David Aikman reported the summary of one Chinese scholar’s lecture to a group of eighteen American tourists:

“One of the things we were asked to look into was what accounted for the success, in fact, the pre-eminence of the West all over the world,” he said. “We studied everything we could from the historical, political, economic, and cultural perspective. At first, we thought it was because you had more powerful guns than we had. Then we thought it was because you had the best political system. Next we focused on your economic system. But in the past twenty years, we have realized that the heart of your culture is your religion: Christianity. That is why the West has been so powerful. The Christian moral foundation of social and cultural life was what made possible the emergence of capitalism and then the successful transition to democratic politics. We don’t have any doubt about this.”[15]

This lecturer was not some ill-informed crackpot. To the contrary, he represented one of China’s premier academic research organizations—the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences (CASS). We don’t just find Western scholarly support for the Jewish-Christian worldview. We find it in the East as well!

Jesus as the Climax

The Scriptures begin with the creational affirmation that all humans are made in God’s image. In many ways, the improvements of the Old Testament over a good deal of other ancient Near Eastern legislation were a significant move toward that ideal. The Old Testament provides us with enduring perspectives about human dignity and fallenness, not to mention moral insights regarding justice, faithfulness, mercy, generosity, and the like.

However, if we stop with the Old Testament, we won’t see the entire story line as it’s brought to completion in Jesus. The Old Testament was in many ways anticipatory of something far greater. So if Jesus truly brought a new covenant for the true Israel and has begun to renew the creation as the second Adam, then we ought to concern ourselves with how his incarnation, ministry, atoning death, and resurrection shed light backward on the Old Testament, with all its messiness. To stop with Old Testament texts without allowing Christ, the second Adam, and the new, true Israel to illuminate them, our reading and interpretation of the Old Testament will be greatly impoverished and, in certain ways, misrepresented.[16]

One day we’ll fully enjoy the realization of pristine goodness and shalom. In the new heaven and earth, no social or racial discrimination will exist. Swords will be beaten into plowshares. Peace will reign. In his own day, Jesus reaffirmed Old Testament texts about loving God and neighbor and called Israel back to live by God’s creational designs. That was then, but hardened hearts are still with us today. Yet Jesus’s approach to the Old Testament should instruct us Christians living in the already/not yet. We’re living with many benefits of the cross of Christ (already), but we still live in a fallen world as we await the new heaven and earth and the receiving of our resurrection bodies (not yet).

Though the New Atheists don’t intend it and though they often go about it in wrongheaded ways, they can serve as a proper challenge for us Christians.[17] How? By reminding us to be more thoughtful in our faith, to live kingdom-centered lives with greater Christian passion and consistency, to deepen our commitment to justice and opposing oppression, to think through contemporary obstacles to belief, and to offer a more compelling vision in word and deed to a watching world. We all need to take a fresh look at Jesus and let our gaze at him shape our devotion to him, our love for others (even our enemies), and our concern for the culture and world in which we find ourselves. Author and pastor Tim Keller gives us a start for our reflection:

If your fundamental is a man dying on the cross for his enemies, if the very heart of your self-image and your religion is a man praying for his enemies as he died for them, sacrificing for them, loving them-if that sinks into your heart of hearts, it’s going to produce the kind of life that the early Christians produced. The most inclusive possible life out of the most exclusive possible claim-and that is that this is the truth. But what is the truth? The truth is a God become weak, loving, and dying for the people who opposed him, dying forgiving them.[18]

While we may stumble or be troubled when reading certain Old Testament texts, we can put them in proper perspective by looking in the right places. The ultimate resolution is found in God’s clarifying Word to us and the One who became flesh and lived among us, who died and rose again on our behalf. The God whom the New Atheists consider a monster is not just a holy God to be reckoned with but a loving, self-sacrificing God who invites us to be reconciled to him.

Further Reading

Hill, Jonathan. What Has Christianity Ever Done for Us? Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 2005.

Schmidt, Alvin. How Christianity Changed the World. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2004.

Stark, Rodney. The Victory of Reason. New York: Random House, 2005.

Wright, N. T. Evil and the Justice of God. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 2006.

Click on the "Is God a Moral Monster" tag below to see all the posts in this series. To go to the start of this series click here.

Questions & Notes

  1. John Adams, The Works of John Adams, Second President of the United States: with a Life of the Author, Notes and Illustrations, by his Grandson Charles Francis Adams, vol. 9 (Boston: Little, Brown, and Co., 1856). Available at http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php&title=2107.

  2. Thomas Cahill, The Gifts of the Jews (New York: Anchor, 1999).

  3. Contrary to the New Atheists, what contributions have Jews made to civilization? This book lists some of them. Can you think of others?

  4. When Christopher Hitchens says that “religion poisons everything,” what does he mean? What is the problem with his claim?

  5. Walter Sinnot-Armstrong, Morality without God (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009), 154.

  6. Jonathan Hill, What Has Christianity Ever Done for Us? (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 2005), 176-77. For thorough documentation on these phenomena, see Alvin J. Schmidt, How Christianity Changed the World (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2004).

  7. What have been some of the contributions Christians have made to the world? What Christ-inspired effects have brought light, help, and hope to the world? Can you think of any other contributions not mentioned in the book?

  8. Jaroslav Pelikan, Jesus through the Centuries (New York: Harper & Row, 1985), 33.

  9. Richard Dawkins, The God Delusion (Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 2006), 37.

  10. Rodney Stark, The Victory of Reason (New York: Random House, 2005), xi.

  11. Look at Jürgen Habermas’s quotation on the influence of the Christian faith. What do you think of it, and why is this important in light of the New Atheists’ critique?

  12. Jürgen Habermas, Time of Transitions, ed. and trans. Ciaran Cronin and Max Pensky (Cambridge: Polity, 2006), 150-51.

  13. Max Stackhouse, “A Christian Perspective on Human Rights,” Society (January/February 2004): 25.

  14. Ibid., 24. See also Max L. Stackhouse and Stephen E. Healey, “Religion and Human Rights: A Theological Apologetic,” in Religious Rights in Global Perspective, ed. J. Witte Jr. and J. D. van der Vyer (Dordrecht: Kluwer, 1996), 486; and Mary Ann Glendon, The World Made New: Eleanor Roosevelt and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (New York: Random House, 2001).

  15. David Aikman, Jesus in Beijing: How Christianity Is Transforming China and Changing the Global Balance of Power (Washington, DC: Regnery, 2003), 5. This quotation serves as an exclamation point to round out Rodney Stark’s study, The Victory of Reason: How Christianity Led to Freedom, Capitalism and Western Success (New York: Random House, 2005), 235.

  16. How does the coming of Jesus bring clarity to the Old Testament and some of its challenges?

  17. Overall, what have been some benefits you’ve taken away from reading and discussing this book? What have you learned about the character and activity of God across the two testaments? How have you been stretched and even strengthened in your faith?

  18. Tim Keller, “Reason for God,” The Explorer (Veritas Forum) (Fall 2008), www.veritas.org/explorer/fall2008.html#story1.

33: Morality without a Lawgiving God

This section gets to the root of the atheists values for critiquing Christian values.  It turns out, they have no root.  They are like that obnoxious weed that grows in the garden that is easily pulled up and eliminated but appears again and again.  
https://www.healthyfoodhouse.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/see-weed-growing-yard-dont-pick-heres.jpg
As seen at healthyfoodhouse.com
  This is a review of Is God a Moral Monster by Paul Copan with study questions added to turn them into lessons.  These lessons are part of a wider study on Sanctification by Faith which has as its goal the fulfillment of Gal 5:16

But I say, walk by the Spirit, and you will not carry out the desire of the flesh. 

  Because sanctification depends upon faith, doubt will be seen as a hindrance.  Misunderstanding can lead to doubt as well as ignorance, deception, and experience like - it doesn't feel right.  This lesson seeks to combat ignorance, deception, and misunderstanding.  By erasing these, our faith is free to function at a higher level.  

  I’ve set all of these studies in a specific order so that anyone may easily build on the foundation of Christ with the finest materials - gold, silver, and precious stones (1 Cor 3:10-13).  God has gifted the Church with amazing evangelists, pastors, and teachers to do the mining so that we have these materials to complete the building project. (Eph 4:11-16).  I invite you to study along with me.  You can see an overview of the complete Sanctification by Faith study here.  To go to the start of the current lesson (Is God a Moral Monster) click here. 

Now may the God of peace Himself sanctify you entirely; and may your spirit and soul and body be preserved complete, without blame at the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ. 1 Thess 5:23 

Part 4: Sharpening the Moral Focus

19: Morality without a Lawgiving God? The Divine Foundation of Goodness

Christopher Hitchens throws down the gauntlet: “I defy you, or anyone, to name one more deed that I would not do, unless I . . . became a Christian.”[1] Sam Harris writes of the “myth of secular moral chaos”—that is, morality and social order don’t need God or religion as their basis. After all, there are plenty of moral atheists and many immoral religious devotees. He rejects the notion that rape or killing children is wrong just because God says so.[2]

Likewise, Daniel Dennett challenges the notion that goodness is opposed to scientific materialism: “There is no reason at all why a disbelief in the immateriality or immortality of the soul should make a person less caring, less moral, less committed to the well-being of everybody on Earth than somebody who believes in ‘the spirit.'”[3] He adds that a “good scientific materialist” can be just as concerned about “whether there is plenty of justice, love, joy, beauty, political freedom, and yes, even religious freedom” as the “deeply spiritual.” Indeed, those calling themselves spiritual can be “cruel, arrogant, self-centered, and utterly unconcerned about the moral problems of the world.” [4]

In his BBC antireligious documentary The Root of All Evil? Richard Dawkins insists that kindness, generosity, and goodness can be found in human nature and that Darwinism explains this. How? We have altruistic genes. We’re genetically wired to scratch another’s back. In other words, genes create morality; God or religion doesn’t. We humans have a moral conscience and a mutual empathy that are constantly evolving.[5]

The message from all of these atheists is loud and clear: people can be moral without believing in God. A more careful examination reveals that the New Atheists are right on one level but wrong on another.

A Matter of Consistency?

Though accusing Yahweh of being a moral monster, Dawkins has his own problem: he has gone on record denying the very existence of evil and goodness.[6]

If the universe were just electrons and selfish genes, meaningless tragedies . . . are exactly what we should expect, along with equally meaningless good fortune. Such a universe would be neither evil nor good in intention. . . . The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but blind pitiless indifference.[7]

In A Devil’s Chaplain, he asserts, “Science has no methods for deciding what is ethical. That is a matter for individuals and for society.”[8] If science alone gives us knowledge, as Dawkins claims, then how can he consider God’s actions immoral or religion the root of all evil? As we’ll see, Dawkins is helping himself to the metaphysical resources of a worldview he repudiates.

Knowing vs. Being

Let’s be clear: the New Atheists are absolutely correct that we don’t need to believe in God or follow the Bible to have a general knowledge of what’s right and wrong. Like theists, atheists have been made in God’s image, and they can recognize the same sorts of virtues and behaviors, as atheists themselves like to point out. Having been made in the divine image, we’ve been designed to function properly by living morally. So if we take our conscience seriously (as we see Gentiles should have done in Amos 1-2), we can get a lot right morally. Those denying that kindness is a virtue or that torturing babies for fun is wrong don’t need an argument; they need psychological and spiritual help! They’re suffering from moral malfunction. When people tell me, “Well, the 9/11 terrorists sincerely believed they were doing what was right,” I reply, “A lot of people in psychiatric wards sincerely believe they’re Alexander the Great, Julius Caesar, or Napoleon Bonaparte!” Sincerity isn’t necessarily an indication of proper function.

Some atheists will say that we know rape is wrong because it violates the victim’s rights and rips apart the social fabric. The problem with moral atheism, though, is that it doesn’t go far enough. Notice how atheists who believe in real right and wrong make a massive intellectual leap of faith. They believe that somehow moral facts were eternally part of the “furniture” of reality but that from impersonal and valueless slime, human persons possessing rights, dignity, worth, and duties were eventually produced. These moral truths were “anticipating” the evolution of morally valuable human beings who would have duties to obey them. Yes, atheists can know that rape is wrong, but that’s no surprise if they have been made in the image of God, whom they refuse to acknowledge. The more fundamental question that atheism seems unable to answer is: How did they come to be rights-bearing, valuable persons?* The problem isn’t one of knowing; it’s one of being.[9]

*Footnote

Daniel Dennett, though he claims to believe in objective morality, oddly rejects intrinsic human rights, which would be the basis for the obligation to show respect to others. He calls such rights “nonsense upon stilts”: Daniel Dennett, Darwin’s Dangerous Idea (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1995), 507.

Let’s change the scenario from a rape on the street to the use of a date rape drug at a party. Wanting to get what he wants, a young man places this drug into the drink of an unsuspecting woman. Suppose he’s nice enough to take certain precautions so that there are no obvious consequences to his actions. The woman wakes up later not knowing the difference. Why is this act still so repugnant? After all, the woman doesn’t know anything, the guy had his pleasure, and no one is the wiser. And why should Dawkins be outraged at such an action? After all, as Dawkins says, human beings simply “dance” to the music of their DNA.[10] If there’s a deviation from genetically produced kindness and generosity, it’s not truly immoral; it’s just a genetic glitch.

It’s wrong to rape a girl—whether she knows what’s happening or not—because she has intrinsic dignity and rights. For the same reason, it’s wrong to mock and insult the mentally challenged even if they don’t seem to be hurt by these verbal assaults. Where then do dignity and rights come from in a world of electrons and selfish genes? The doctrine of the image of God supports our strongest intuitions that humans aren’t objects to use and abuse but persons who should be respected and treated fairly before the law.

Intrinsically valuable, thinking persons don’t come from impersonal, nonconscious, unguided, valueless processes over time. A personal, self-aware, purposeful, good God provides the much-needed context that a God-less universe just can’t. Personhood and morality are necessarily connected; moral values are rooted in personhood. Without God (a personal Being), no persons—and thus no moral values—would exist at all. Only if God exists can moral properties be realized.[11]

Some atheists will claim that moral values are “just there”—necessary truths that are part of the furniture of the universe. If that’s the case, as we just noted, then what a whopping cosmic coincidence that these moral laws were somehow anticipating the eventual emergence of moral creatures who would have duties to obey these laws.

My Comment

So, if I understand this atheist asserting this right, these moral values could have appeared in the universe without any moral beings to see them through. Is that what you are saying?

God’s existence and creation of humans makes better sense of the connection between genuine, universal moral standards (rooted in God’s nature) and human dignity and worth.

Even secular ethical systems—whether variations on the ethical views of the philosophers Aristotle or Kant or perhaps some social contract view—may affirm many truths that believers in God affirm. These systems may agree that we ought to carry out certain moral obligations or cultivate certain character qualities. Even so, these systems are still incomplete because they don’t offer a basis for human dignity and worth.

The Hitchens Challenge

What about the Hitchens challenge? Can we name one moral virtue in a Christian that an atheist like Hitchens doesn’t have? Yes! How about not honoring God or giving him thanks (Rom. 1:21)? What about the sin of human self-sufficiency and the refusal to submit to God’s authority (Ps. 2)? What about Hitchens’s despising God’s offer of salvation or his refusal to depend on God’s grace (Matt. 23:37)? If the two great commands are to love God fully and to love one’s neighbor as oneself, and Hitchens is as good as he says he is, then he still flunks the test at 50 percent. He has rejected the “great and foremost command” (Matt. 22:38-39).

I wonder if Hitchens worries about things; he isn’t interested in casting his cares on the One who cares for him (1 Peter 5:7). Does Hitchens love his enemies and do good to them (Matt. 5:44)? Does he take God’s name in vain (Exod. 20:7)? Does he forgive others as he has been offered forgiveness (Eph. 4:32)?[12]

Perhaps we can take things a step further. Guenter Lewy, the agnostic political scientist who taught at the University of Massachusetts, has observed that there are some moral virtues that atheism is unlikely to produce:

Adherents of [a naturalistic] ethic are not likely to produce a Dorothy Day or a Mother Teresa. Many of these people love humanity but not individual human beings with all their failings and shortcomings. They will be found participating in demonstrations for causes such as nuclear disarmament but not sitting at the bedside of a dying person. An ethic of moral autonomy and individual rights, so important to secular liberals, is incapable of sustaining and nourishing values such as altruism and self-sacrifice.[13]

Along these lines, the Christian writer Malcolm Muggeridge wrote that he spent many years in India and Africa, where he witnessed “much righteous endeavor undertaken by Christians of all denominations.” By contrast, however, “I never, as it happens, came across a hospital or orphanage run by the Fabian Society or a Humanist leper colony.”[14] Even if we consider such undertakings of self-sacrifice morally praiseworthy and even heroic, they don’t seem to be very biologically advantageous.

Can Naturalistic Evolution Explain Morality?

Dawkins claims that kindness and generosity are rooted in our genes. We’ve developed an awareness of morality that proves to be biologically beneficial. Although I go into more detail on this question elsewhere, let me offer a few responses here.

Why Trust Our Genes?

If we’re nothing more than the products of naturalistic evolution trying to fight, feed, flee, and reproduce, why trust the convictions of our minds—whether about truth or morality? If we’re just dancing to our DNA—over which we have absolutely no control—how do we know we’re right about anything? We’d only be accidentally right, but this can’t be called knowledge. As Charles Darwin mused, “With me the horrid doubt always arises whether the convictions of man’s mind, which has been developed from the mind of the lower animals, are of any value or at all trustworthy. Would any one trust in the convictions of a monkey’s mind, if there are any convictions in such a mind?”[15]

We could accidentally believe true things that help us to survive. But we could just as well have many false beliefs that help us to survive. For example, we might be hardwired to believe that humans are valuable and have rights or that we have moral duties to perform. Such beliefs might help us survive as a species, but they would be completely false.

The naturalistic evolutionary process is interested in fitness or survival, not in true belief. So not only is objective morality undermined, but so is rational thought. According to atheistic evolutionists Michael Ruse and E. O. Wilson, morality is a “corporate illusion” that has been “fobbed off on us by our genes to get us to cooperate.”[16] We think we really ought to love little children, but we’re wrong to conclude that right and wrong really exist. This illusion that we have moral duties is compelling and strong. Without it, we’d ignore or disobey our moral impulses. However, having moral inclinations is far different from having moral duties, which brings us to our next point.

Moving from “Is” to “Ought”

According to the skeptic Michael Shermer, whom Dawkins approvingly cites, asking “Why should we be moral?” is like wondering “Why should we be hungry or horny?” Shermer insists that “the answer is that it is as much a part of human nature to be moral as it is to be hungry, horny, jealous, and in love.”[17] Such drives are hardwired into us by evolution. But as C. S. Lewis noted, moral impulses, given such hardwiring conditions, are no more true (or false) “than a vomit or a yawn.”[18] Thinking “I ought” is on the same level of “I itch.” Indeed, “my impulse to serve posterity is just the same sort of thing as my fondness for cheese” or preferring mild or bitter beer.[19]

In effect, all Shermer can do is describe how human beings actually function, but he can’t prescribe how humans ought to behave. There’s no difference between whether I ought to be moral and whether I ought to be hungry, since both are functions of evolutionary hardwiring. These states just are.[20]

If, on the other hand, humans are made in the image of God and have value from the start, then we don’t have to wonder about how to move from the “is” of nature to the “ought” of genuine moral obligation. A supremely valuable Being is at the heart of reality; no is-ought problem exists if theism is true.

Arbitrary Morality

Ruse and Wilson report that instead of evolving from “savannah-dwelling primates,” we, like termites, could have evolved needing “to dwell in darkness, eat each other’s [waste], and cannibalise the dead.” If the latter were the case, we would “extol such acts as beautiful and moral” and “find it morally disgusting to live in the open air, dispose of body waste and bury the dead.”[21] So our awareness of morality (“a sense of right and wrong and a feeling of obligation to be thus governed”) is of “biological worth,” serves as “an aid to survival,” and “has no being beyond this.”[22] Naturalistic morality is arbitrary and could have developed in opposite directions. We happen to admire the morality that evolution has passed on to us, but we could be singing the praises of the very opposite morality for the same reasons: we dance to our DNA.

To further illustrate, consider the book A Natural History of Rape, coauthored by a biologist and an anthropologist.[23] The upshot of the book is that rape can be explained biologically: when a male cannot find a mate, his subconscious drive to reproduce his own species makes him force himself upon a female. After all, such acts happen in the animal kingdom with, say, male mallards or scorpion flies. The authors don’t advocate rape; in fact, they claim that rapists aren’t excused for their (mis)behavior. But if the rape impulse happens to be embedded into human nature from antiquity and if it bestows biological advantage, how can the authors suggest that this behavior ought to be ended? The authors’ resistance to rape, despite its naturalness, suggests objective moral values that transcend nature. An ethic rooted in nature appears to leave us with arbitrary morality.[24] Theism, on the other hand, begins with value; the is-ought gulf is easily bridged.

Again, it’s hard to see how the naturalist/atheist can move from material, valueless, nonconscious processes to the production of valuable, rights-bearing human beings. From valuelessness, valuelessness comes. Matter doesn’t have the capacity to produce value. Physics textbooks don’t include goodness or even consciousness in their attempted definitions of matter.

By contrast, the God hypothesis doesn’t force us to make a huge leap from valuelessness to value. Rather, we begin with value (God’s good character), and we end with value (divine image-bearing humans with moral responsibility and rights). A good God effectively bridges the chasm between is and ought. Value exists from the very beginning; it is rooted in a self-existent, good God. So for all their criticisms of religion, New Atheists still lack the moral foundations to justify genuine moral criticism of theism, nor can atheism truly ground moral value or human dignity and worth.

Further Reading

Copan, Paul. “God, Naturalism, and the Foundations of Morality.” In The Future of Atheism: Alister McGrath and Daniel Dennett in Dialogue, edited by Robert Stewart. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2008.

-. “True for You, but Not for Me”: Overcoming Common Objections to Christian Faith. 2nd ed. Minneapolis: Bethany House, 2009.

Copan, Paul, and Mark D. Linville. The Moral Argument. New York: Continuum Press, forthcoming.

Hare, John. Why Bother Being Good? The Place of God in the Moral Life. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 2002.

Click on the "Is God a Moral Monster" tag below to see all the posts in this series. To go to the start of this series click here.

Questions & Notes

  1. Cited in Michael Novak, No One Sees God (New York: Doubleday, 2007), 76.

  2. Sam Harris, “The Myth of Secular Moral Chaos,” Council for Secular Humanism, www.secularhumanism.org/index.php?section=library&page=sharris_26_3 (accessed September 19, 2009).

  3. Have you ever discussed the topic of morality with an atheist or skeptic? How have the conversations gone?

  4. Daniel Dennett, Breaking the Spell: Religion as a Natural Phenomenon (New York: Viking, 2006), 305.

  5. Richard Dawkins, The Root of All Evil? directed by Russell Barnes (BBC, 2006).

  6. What is the glaring inconsistency in Richard Dawkins’s claim that God is a “moral monster”?

  7. Richard Dawkins, River out of Eden: A Darwinian View of Life (New York: Basic Books/ HarperCollins, 1995), 132-33.

  8. Richard Dawkins, A Devil’s Chaplain (Boston: Houghton & Mifflin, 2003), 34.

  9. Why is it important to distinguish between “knowing” and “being” when it comes to morality?

  10. Dawkins, River out of Eden, 133.

  11. Why is it so difficult to account for human dignity and worth if God doesn’t exist?

  12. Atheists commonly claim that they are just as good as any religious believer. However, what are some moral obligations that atheists don’t carry out?

  13. Guenter Lewy, Why America Needs Religion (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1996), 137.

  14. Malcolm Muggeridge, “Me and Myself,” in Jesus Rediscovered (New York: Pyramid Publications, 1969), 157.

  15. Letter (July 3, 1881) to Wm. G. Down, The Life and Letters of Charles Darwin, ed. Francis Darwin (London: John Murray, Abermarle Street, 1887), 1:315-16.

  16. Michael Ruse and E. O. Wilson, “The Evolution of Ethics,” in Religion and the Natural Sciences, ed. J. E. Huchingson (Orlando: Harcourt Brace, 1993), 310-11.

  17. Michael Shermer, The Science of Good and Evil (New York: Henry Holt, 2004), 57.

  18. C. S. Lewis, Miracles (New York: Macmillan, 1960), 37.

  19. Ibid., 38, 37.

  20. How do you respond to the claim that evolution explains morality? What is missing in purely naturalistic accounts of morality?

  21. Ruse and Wilson, “The Evolution of Ethics,” 311.

  22. Michael Ruse, The Darwinian Paradigm (London: Routledge, 1989), 262, 268.

  23. Randy Thornhill and Craig T. Palmer, A Natural History of Rape: Biological Bases of Sexual Coercion (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2000).

  24. How does the existence of a good God who makes human beings in his image offer a more likely context for objective moral values?