Archive for July, 2007

I was round about twenty-one years old when a very relevant youth Pastor pressed a pair of tickets to the Simon Wiesenthal Center Museum of Tolerance into my hand. He felt that every Christian had a duty to make pilgrimage that holy sepulcher at least once. He compared it to a conversion experience, a sacrament all its own. I took the tickets with a swell of gratitude for his apparent concern of my sanctification. These thoughts were momentarily interrupted however by the wry streak of irony crawling through my mind—that he would single me out for such a gift; in amidst a very ethnically diverse gathering I no doubt appeared the epitome of an Aryan. But rather than spurn his motives, which I had no certain apprehension of, I happily accepted.

Upon entry of the lavish facility I and my fellow visitors, the majority of whom (even the apparent goyim) wore yamikas, were corralled to a very well planned waiting area from whence we had a clear vista of the marble-pillared and gold-trimmed foyer. Hasidic and Orthodox Mitzvah-ready boys were seen striding the corridors in droves.

Our Guide then appeared with a glassy Eastern stare, locks dangling. He briefed our
little troop of Pilgrims on the assured sanctity of the hallowed memorial which we were about to enter and we were informed that anyone not demonstrating the appropriate degree of humility would be removed. Thus began our tour.

We wound our way through the maze of altar-monuments to what we were told were historically afflicted minorities: American Indians, Aborigines, Negroes, Witches, Pagans, Homosexuals and of course, the Jew.

What began as an intermittence of baleful sighs amid our group built as the tour progressed to a crescendo of sobs and penitent prayers. Of course the greatest visitation was saved for last—all other atrocities are portrayed as paling in comparison to that great crime of the twentieth century—the Holocaust. It is presented as the capstone and zenith of human barbarity, in the shadow of which, all other acts of oppression are weighed and measured.

We were well and solemnly lectured on the unique wickedness of Western Man, which is to say, European Christendom. I bit my tongue, awaiting the promised question and answer period. All the other Whites wept with downcast eyes.

There in the sacrarum of White guilt these Pilgrims, Jew and Christian alike in the sin of Jeroboam, genuflected before the holy relics.

…but the day was not yet over; we were then ushered into a small auditorium with a consortium of young scholars aspiring to the Rabbinate to hear the first hand account of a pair of Holocaust Survivors: The Husband and Wife duo had been rescued from the same concentration camp (the name of which escapes me) by the Allied Forces at the close of the war.

The old man was the primary speaker but his wife would occasionally echo his words in shrill screams as if to underscore the importance of one point or another. The man spoke of the misery inflicted upon him and his family prior to the war by the Nazis’ forbiddance of charging exorbitant interest in his father’s deferred payment jewelry sales. He also spoke of how his family prayed for the victory of “Stalin’s glorious Red Army”.

But mostly the man waxed polemic in his comparisons of the Jews to the German people. He unabashedly declared that the Jew be the moral, intellectual and spiritual superior to all other creatures and as such, the inheritor and rightful possessor of all things. If nothing else, he wanted to impress upon his audience the rationale that under the circumstance of his peoples’ obvious superiority that the notion of the German Superman was the greatest affront imaginable. “Zis” he said, “dobbles zer guilt!” His enrapt audience looked on nodding in agreement.

Though I felt some compunction about upbraiding a much older man, his hypocritical venom could not go unchallenged. I raised my hand as those around me raised eyebrows. I asked simply how he condemned the notion of the German Superman with such moral adamancy while simultaneously promoting the notion of the Jewish Superman (?). He sneered back at me in disgust as hushed chatter filled the room. The only word which I was able to discern in the murmur was “Nazi”.

He replied, “Ze Jews are nossing like ze Germans! Ze Germans are killers een zer blut!” And staring hard into my very Germanic eyes he screamed, “Ze Germans are monsters—every von off zem must be viped out! It dossent matter if zey are children—zey vill only grow op to be monsters like ze rest!” Then he composed himself a bit and concluded coolly with, “History has taught us zat ve must never allow ze Germans to rise again. No matter ver zey are een ze vorld, zey must be viped out.” His wife was by this point screaming incoherently and no one in the auditorium was the least bit phased by anything the genocidal Jew had said.

As I was being escorted from the building he received a standing ovation.


Read Full Post »

We must now turn to examine the nature of the Christian inclination of European Man:

As the floodwaters receded the Ark came to rest in the mountains of Ararat, which straddle the Armen-Turkey border in South Eastern Europe. It is from this point that all of the tribes of men would sojourn to the plains of Shinar in modern Iraq, attempting as it were, to return to the Fertile Crescent region from whence they’d embarked prior to the cataclysm. (This option may also have proven appealing on the basis of the rapid onset of the ice age which would have blanketed most of Europe under glacial frost.)

There, in the misguided pursuit of philanthropic unity, they denied the tripartite division of humanity which God had declared by way of Noah’s prophecy. They conspired to employ egalitarianism to trump providence. Free-will was asserted over the Predestination of God.

But God stepped in, scattering the peoples of the earth in groupings of “families, in their tribes and in their nations”. He did so by way of a primary component of culture—language. Language is the starting place for human interrelation; it is the basis for social coherence. God obstructed this coherence not by divisions in class, not generationaly, but specifically along lines of descent. Accordingly, kinship is historically (alongside language) of seminal importance to the issue of social coherence. Near of kin is near of ken.

The bible concludes the story of the first ethnic diaspora with the delineation of nations which would descend from each of Noah’s sons. Beyond this point, the scripture narrows its focus to the line of Shem, through Heber, through, Abraham, through David to the Christ. And it is only at the point of His advent that the scripture again turns its attention to the Gentiles who were to be ‘enlarged’ or ‘grafted in’ as prophesied by Noah.

The question then is what happened to the Japhethites between Genesis chpt.10 and the New Testament? Where had they gone? What had they done? What was the course of providence in the biblical interim which facilitated such fertile soil for the Gospel? St. Augustine dedicated much ink to answering questions of this kind for the purposes of procuring a distinctly Christian History of the world. On this basis all believers have a stake in the para-biblical exploits of the Japhethites. It is the story of God’s superintendent preparation for the institution of the new covenant. It is the story of what Augustine well termed The City of God.

Despite the fact that they have fallen out of vogue with both the Academy and Seminary, there exists a fair body of historical writing regarding the subject of European national origins in scripture. We have the Historia Brittonum by Nennius (8th cent.), An Historical Treatise of the Travels of Noah into Europe by Berosus (works of a 3rd cent. B.C. Chaldean Preist of Bel translated by Richard Lynche, Gent. In 1601), the Bayerische Chronik and the Deutsche Chronik both by Johannes Turmair (1526), The Chronicles of England, Scotland and Ireland by Raphael Hollinshed (1587), et.al.

Though these materials have some areas of wide disagreement in regard to which tribe first settled what region, they also share certain areas of unanimity: Of chief importance is that they all agree on the issue that after the scattering of the nations father Noah remained with Japheth’s family.

While reserved skepticism is always healthy when weighing apocryphal or para-biblical texts I would submit to the reader that the notion of Noah tarrying on with Japheth is, under the circumstances defined in Genesis, the most reasonable and likely course of events to be expected. Shem was the eldest son and already a believer; his lot was certain. Ham was a non-believer who committed acts of familial treason (of a sexual nature) and was cursed in his offspring; his lot was also certain. Japheth was not yet a believer but had nonetheless acted honorably toward his father. He was however prophesied to come to the faith, eventually displacing his eldest brother by “dwell[ing] in the tents of Shem”. Shem was the contemporary kingdom but Japheth was the greater stake in the consummation of that kingdom. What had been planted in the people of Shem would blossom among the sons of Japheth. Where Shem corresponds to the old covenant, Japheth corresponds to the new. Under these circumstances, Noah’s persistence with Japheth is credible.

But aside from the myriad of historical surveys, the Noahic European journey has also been a unanimous convention of historic Christendom—be it the Roman Church, the Eastern Orthodox or even the Russian Orthodox, all agree that Noah set out with the Japhethite tribes to subdue the northlands in preparation of the seedbed which would so firmly receive and affix to the Christ.
Infact, this view draws into its scope and harmonizes the broader Classical/ Hellenic history with the bible. It is asserted that many of the eldest Mediterranean cities were founded by Noah, Japheth, Jason (Javan: the Hebrew name for Greece & a son of Japheth) and the Argonauts. Japheth is said (in Hesiod’s Theogony) to have been called Lapethos or Japetos—which in Greek mythology is the name of the Titan father of Prometheus and progenitor of humanity (written of in Homer’s Illiad VII, 479).

In Part I. I alluded to the preoccupations of C.S. Lewis and J.R.R. Tolkein with European myth and folkways as shadows or echoes of the Gospel. The understanding of these things which were apparently common to the Inklings (a small Christian Writers’ guild to which both authors belonged) is that the sons of Japheth retained in their collective bardic culture some shades of the truth undoubtedly disseminated by Noah himself.

This mimetic echo of the true religion is hard to deny in certain quarters of Pagan myth. The Celts worshipped gods in pseudo-Trinitarian matrixes of which Jack Lindsay says:

“Triads were much in favor. Besides the Mothers there was a three-headed god and Lug seems to have had a triple form.” (Our Celtic Heritage pg.102)

This triadic deity concept was the rule rather than the exception both in mainland Europe as well as the Isles. The Triad god concept was even argued for by Plato. Obviously these pagan forms do not square with anything approaching a Nicene standard but they are nonetheless unique amongst the world religions for their Trinitarian similarity.

This similarity of concept is also both apparent and abundant in Norse mythology. In Odinism Odin or Woden was known as the Allfather who, at a prepared moment in history, descend to earth in human form to be crucified on a tree (Despite the near identity of concept, the motive for Woden’s condescension was wholly dissimilar to that of Christ.). Tolkein winks at this pseudo-Christ analogy by his employ of the name Gandalf (LOTR) which was the earthly alias of Woden.

Also of note is Woden’s son Thor: He is portrayed as the personification of virtue and power who bound the Midgard Serpent (also called the Dragon of the Sea—this is very similar to the language used for the Devil in the biblical description of Leviathan). This Dragon would remain bound until the last day at which point he would break free with all the forces of Hell to do battle with Thor and the hosts of heaven one last time. Anyone at all familiar with the book of Revelation will grasp the parallel.

Aside from his war against the the Midgard Serpent, Thor is also said to have been in perpetual battle with Loki the Trickster and that he once strode into Hell itself for the sake of breaking the bonds of hellish control exerted over the world (reflecting even a degree of conformity to the Apostles’ Creed which says that “He descended into Hell”).

Both The Norse and the Celtic religions even seem to have maintained some form Edenic recollection in the Odinist acknowledgement of Yggdrassil (the Tree of Life) and the Sacred Groves of the Celts.

Now someone may say that such comparisons could just as easily be imposed upon other world religions with similar results but they would be hard-pressed to find nearly so dense a web of parallels as are present in the European bardic traditions. (I will exempt the various mid-eastern religions from such a challenge as they developed in perpetuity of direct contact with the recipients of special revelation—Israel) For the sake of fairness, we must compare the relative virtues of European mythos with that of Chinese, African, American Indian or Micronesian. Next to Europe I must give China the high marks simply for their linguistic character for Evil—a man and a woman beneath a serpent-wrapped tree. This is admittedly a significant connection to the Christian view but it is a rather singular note of commonality. Buddhism, Confucism and Taoism have little to do with anything resembling Christianity. Their character for Evil seems so unique a connection that we are tempted to simply chalk it up to Tocharian (the Caucasian inhabitants of old China) influence. No other group even seems notable.

Of course a survey of Flood accounts among the world religions yields better fruit but the sheer ubiquity of such attestations renders them mundane at best. They are simply too common to bear on the question of Christian parallels. None but the European mythologies seem to have preserved any semblance of true religion beyond the deluge.

But the unique echoes which we find of the true faith in the bardic traditions of old Europe are precisely what we might expect of a people uniquely preconditioned to receive the gospel. That predisposition was evident even in their progenitor—Japheth, in that he, who was not yet a believer, still honored his father as you might expect of a believer. God had simply predestined him to a different natural temperament.

“You know pretty clearly now what sort of God it is of which I am speaking to you. If my God exists it was He who was back of my parents and teachers. It was He who conditioned all that conditioned me in my early life. But then it was He also who conditioned everything that conditioned you in your early life. God, the God of Christianity, is the All-Conditioner!…No more than the Ethiopian can change his skin or the leopard his spots can you change your attitude.” (Cornelius Van Til, Why I Believe in God)

This aspect of predestination is a clear consequent of the first of the five points of Calvinism—the doctrine of Total Depravity. No orthodox Christian can deny the innate and immanently heritable attribute of original sin. As human beings sharing in the common descent from the first Man we all exist in a common state of falleness. In that same conceptual vein we all inherit distinguishable physical traits which correspond with our “families…tribes…[and] nations”, which is to say that lineage bears as greatly on temperament, intelligence and personality as it does on the color of one’s skin or the shape of one’s skull. As surely as your son has red hair, he’ll have your father’s temper. It has ever been both joyful and vexing for parents to see their own temperaments passed to their infant children.

And the fact that a child comes out of the womb with an observable personality prior to being ‘taught’ one only further testifies against the Freudian and Youngian Behaviorist theories. We are not born tabla raza. God sovereignly preconditions us to certain tendencies before we ever hear a human voice (prior to any culture). To say contrary is to the Christian, simply Gnostic. It is heresy.

All Three Parts

Read Full Post »

“The Faith is Europe and Europe is the Faith.” (Hilaire Belloc, 1920)

Dr. Belloc’s sociological appraisal of Christendom is that the European peoples are uniquely Christian and Christianity is uniquely European. He contends that the two are rather inextricable from one another. He is not alone in this assertion. Matthew Henry held similar views, as had Martin Luther before him. Calvin also expressed such sentiments at various points in his career. There have been entire compendiums gathered on the Eurocentric teachings of both English and American Puritans (see Anti-Blackness in English Religion 1500-1800 as well as Puritan Race Virtue, Vice and Values 1620-1820, both by Joseph R. Washington Jr. em.) Such views are even found woven throughout the writings of the church fathers. They were also notably the de facto orthodox position of the Southern Presbyterians such as Thornwell, Palmer and Dabney. Most recently these views are preserved in the Dominionist writings of R.J. Rushdoony, Chris Ortiz, et. al. This Eurocentric Faith is also found, to the horror of many a mega-church soccer mom, replete in the writings of C.S. Lewis (see The Pilgrim’s Regress) and that of J.R.R. Tolkein (especially LOTR).

Beyond the writings of the more overt representatives it is both fair and accurate to say that Belloc’s was the historically orthodox view of Christian Anthropology and Social
Theory. Even in circles which spoke or wrote little on the subject of race, the Ethno-Christian view was held practically and codified with the deepest religious conviction in all quarters of Christendom.

It is an oft overlooked fact of late that racial integration was opposed by virtually all American Christians up to and through the time of the Brown vs. Board of Education Supreme Court ruling. Despite the dogged resistance of the Moral Majority, the tri-pronged assault of the Academy, Media and Court would compel the Church to acquiesce to the new social orthodoxy (see Alan Wolfe’s The Transformation of American Religion).

Likewise, South African Apartheid found unwavering support in the various Dutch Reformed denominations up until the radical takeover of that government in the 1980s at which point the Reformed community would grudgingly distance themselves from the segregationist institution of Apartheid for the sake of political viability.

Call it the European character of Christianity or the Christian character of European Man—either way, Christianity was universally recognized as “the White Man’s religion” by Christian and Heathen alike. In Kipling’s day (a vastly more Christian era) The White Man’s Burden was in no way conceptually fringe. It wasn’t “racist”. It certainly wasn’t sinful. On the contrary, it reflected Christian Orthodoxy.

Christendom took European Man to be uniquely blessed amongst the various tribes of the earth. The White Man was seen as uniquely predisposed to the Faith. The nature of this predisposition was seen at once as the product of both cultural and biological lineage—nature and nurture. While we can distinguish between the two, we cannot wholly separate them. While a people may be influenced by cultural means, a good culture (Christianity) is embraced and propagated by individuals who, by the grace of God, have placed in them certain inclinations prior to the impartation of the culture in question. St. Paul attests to this when speaking of the Bereans (prior to conversion) as “…more noble-minded…” (Acts 17:11) and when he said that Cretans (apparently post conversion) were “always liars, evil beasts and lazy gluttons” (Titus 1:12). It should be pointed out here that the Apostle does not shrink from the strongest generalized denouncement of certain ethnicities (viz., “evil beasts”) any more than he does from generalizing others as “noble” irrespective of their conversion status. A prophet has asked accordingly:

“Can the Ethiopian change his skin or the leopard its spots? Then may you also do good who are accustomed to do evil.” (Jer.13:23)

Whether one interprets this literary device as an analogy, a metaphor, illustration or a simile, some things are perspicuously clear: The Ethiopian is posited alongside a beast of particular viciousness in an illustration concerning things which are “accustomed to do[ing] evil”.

The Ethiop is offered as a parallel example of a beast with a uniquely predatory disposition—the leopard. Both the Ethiopian and the Leopard may be culled under certain circumstances but it cannot change their innate proclivities. There is no sense in which the modern multicult Minister would utter such social blasphemies but the Prophets and the Apostles do so brazenly.

Though useful, the subject of the Negro is only tangential to this article. In as much as the Negro possesses heritable traits, so too does European Man. What then is the biblical testimony concerning the fairer tribes?

“’May God enlarge Japheth, and may he dwell in the tents of Shem; and may Canaan be his servant.’ And Noah lived after the flood three hundred and fifty years. So all the days of Noah were nine hundred and fifty years; and he died.” (Gen.9: 27-29)

This has historically and orthodoxically been understood as the “grafting in” of the gentiles (Rom.11).

“From these the coastland peoples of the Gentiles were separated into their lands, everyone according to his language, according to their families, into their nations.”(Gen.10:5)

These Japhethite tribes are uniquely referred to as “the Gentiles”. The moniker is in this passage directed at the White tribes of the earth rather exclusively, appearing nowhere in reference to the line of Ham. But that’s not to say that the Church has taken that to preclude all Hamite descendants from the Church (Phillip did take the time to witness to an Ethiopian eunuch afterall); rather, this “enlargement” or “grafting in” of the Gentiles has simply been viewed as a predominantly Japhethite phenomenon. This view is illustrated in-text by the Apostles’ comparative interactions with the Bereans and the Ethiopian, both previously mentioned: The Bereans are genuinely commended for their direct searches of the scripture while the (clearly literate) Ethiopian is asked by a dubious Phillip, “Do you understand what you’re reading?”(Acts 8:30)

By and large, the New Testament chronicles the unique receptivity of the Gospel on the part Japhethites (Europeans) specifically. This is exactly what we would expect to see if we take Genesis chapter 9 (as Christians always have) to single out Japheth’s line particularly as recipients of the Kingdom. By contrast, it is wholly incongruous and in no small measure unsettling to those who deny kin-based nation theory, which is to say, the post civil rights era churches.

But lest anyone suppose it born of a self-serving inclination on the part of the author, I submit to the reader that this idea of God’s foreordination of certain families and certain nations be no novelty of sheer personal biases. The bible teaches that such a division was primordially instituted between the Sethites and Cainites. One line was covenantally blessed, the other cursed. This division is punctuated by the hand of God in His setting of a “mark” upon Cain—whether this “mark” was a heritable trait or not deserves its own article but suffice it to say that God Himself set men apart by certain observable physical characteristics and by families—this much is beyond argument.

As expected, we see continuity throughout the entirety of the Old Testament on this point. Noah would prophecy concerning the separate nations that his sons were to sire respectively; but after the Shemites, Japhethites and Hamites resolved amongst themselves to contravene the Lord’s decree concerning his explicit tripartite division of humanity He would forcibly separate them “in their families, in their tribes and in their nations”.

God called Abraham to be holy (separate); as such he permits his son Isaac to wed only one of his kinswomen. Isaac would later follow suit, allowing his son Jacob to marry none but kindred.

This concept is perhaps made most plain in the “choseness” of Israel as nation. God had at that time revealed himself singularly to one ethnicity, to nearly the complete exclusion of all others.

Though he intends it as an indictment, R. B. Theime aids my case when he says that “Calvinism is inherent Racism.”(See Soldiers of God) He rightly deduces that the claim made by the Reformed Faith that God chooses both those to whom the Gospel goes as well as those who are able to receive it means that God has plainly chosen European Man as the foremost historical recipient of the Kingdom of heaven. The biblical notion of Providence carries as its consequence the fact that God elected to bless certain races over others whom, by contrast, He cursed. It means that God ultimately made Japhethites more receptive than the lines of Shem and Ham. While this fact ought not give anyone cause for boasting (we certainly in no way earned God’s blessings) neither can it be ignored. It is historical. It is scriptural. It is factual. Though we can distinguish between them, we cannot separate them: Europe and the Faith are inextricably linked.

All Three Parts

Read Full Post »