A Christian Understanding of the Reality of Race

A Christian Understanding of the Reality of Race

Ehud Would, November 21, 2011

The Reality of Race

races of men
RACE, n. [L. radix and radius having the same original. This word coincides in origin with rod, ray, radiate, &c.]
1. The lineage of a family, or continued series of descendants from a parent who is called the stock. A race is the series of descendants indefinitely … Hence the long race of Alban fathers come.
2. A generation; a family of descendants …
3. A particular breed; as a race of mules; a race of horses; a race of sheep.
Of such a race no matter who is king.
~ Webster’s 1828 Dictionary


Strange days are these. I say they are strange because the current socio-religious climate has degenerated to the point where we now have need of a reassertion and clarification of matters which were, from a Christian vantage, regarded as the most elementary facts of life, even as recently as sixty years ago. It is this strangeness of the current milieu which now compels me, as a Christian, to render an apologetic for the reality of race. To start with, it’s rather difficult to discuss the reality of race without examining the conceptual paradigm which has ostensibly outlawed it – the relatively new term of “racism.” As Craig Bodeker has so adroitly shown, “racism” is defined in ways so numerous and mutually contradictory as to render it a useless term. If it means everything in general, it means nothing in particular.

But in no way tarnishing Mr. Bodeker’s work, I here treat only two major trends of definition: namely, the two diametrically opposed and mutually exclusive perspectives to which White and non-White “anti-racists” have rallied themselves. Racism, according to non-Whites, is “prejudice plus power,” and in that paradigm they go on to identify power strictly with Whiteness. Since it is acknowledged that everyone has prejudices, this definition implies that a racist is nothing more than your average White person. Liberal Whites, on the other hand, have opted for an entirely different definition of the term: they tend to define it as “the belief that race is biologically real and meaningful.” It is this liberal White point of view, in particular, which this article addresses. But before proving racial realism, let us reflect on precisely what these two mutually exclusive definitions do in conjunction with one another: the non-Whites’ definition of racism – the belief that all Whites are and only Whites can be racists by way of “prejudice plus power” – actually marks themselves as racists in the eyes of liberal Whites! And the liberal Whites’ definition of racism – the belief that race be a meaningful concept – only heaps upon themselves yet more adamant charges of racism from non-Whites, because non-Whites perceive their definition as, first, an absurd and obvious denial of reality, and second, an attempt on the part of Whites to evade any corporate guilt for the storied crimes of the White race. To Blacks and other non-Whites, the liberal Whites’ sudden denial of the existence of the White race is analogous to the devil’s greatest trick – convincing the world that he never really existed in the first place.

Now, the perceptive reader will have guessed the next twist in the saga – even a liberal White cannot forever evade the reality that it is predominantly non-Whites who insist that his a-racial view evidences him as a particularly virulent brand of racist himself, a covert racist. And when he finally comes face-to-face with that reality, he must immediately condemn himself for even perceiving his accusers’ generally non-White makeup! In the balance, then, he can do nothing to escape his racism. Either he is a racist for accepting the reality of race, or he is a racist for denying it. It may at first sound overstated, but when you step back and consider the implications of the matter, it really is the existential crisis of our time. The liberal White denial of race is one of the greatest impediments to real peace amongst the races.

The “anti-racist” agenda embarked upon by every Western government in the last sixty years is driven by fuzzy, and even downright self-contradictory, ideological commitments. As thinking Christians, we are charged by the Almighty Himself to both extol truth and bring low all that is a lie (2 Cor. 10:5; Eph. 5:11). If we do not, God assures us that He will visit the out-workings of our sin upon our heads and the heads of our posterity (Obad. 1:15). Or, as Richard Weaver so succinctly stated it, “Ideas have consequences.” With the charge of these realities in mind, I ask the reader to restrain any trained knee-jerk reaction so as to make room for a little truth. All truth is God’s Truth, after all.

Let’s begin.

Bob Whitaker has famously pointed out the contemporary cognitive dissonance at play in the fact that forensic anthropologists are routinely called upon by the American court system to identify the races of cadavers recovered from crime scenes. For the purpose of conclusive victim-identification, these experts are asked to testify under oath that they can definitively ascertain the race of a corpse from said remains. Then, astoundingly, for the presumed purposes of not engendering prejudice in a given jury, they are directed, in a gross contradiction of their previous testimony, to swear that modern science has concluded that races do not really exist at all. Though race is universally accepted as a sufficiently tangible reality for the purposes of forensically identifying victims and perpetrators, the courts have mandated blatant perjury on the issue. But, of course, this institutionalized contradiction is merely an attempt at continuity with, and standardization of, the Marxist monkeyshines of an occupied academia.

Even the most committed liberals are unable to wish away the evidentiary avalanche. At the risk of regurgitating some well-worn facts, I will briefly outline the burgeoning assemblage of crime and IQ statistics which so transparently demonstrates differences beyond physical appearance. We could pick any two races and find real, demonstrable differences. However, for ease of illustration and familiarity, we will contrast Europeans (Whites) and Africans (Blacks).

Blacks in America have been proven redundantly by every conceived standard of measure to possess an average IQ of 85That’s 20 points, or two standard deviations, lower than the Euro-American average of 105. When I say “every conceived standard,” I mean just that: liberals constantly tweak the tests to favor Black culture, providing extra programs, tutors, and cash prizes to inspire better performance in Blacks. In some cases, they even mandate the addition of extra points based upon race – the beneficiaries of which are always Blacks and Mestizos. But even when the tests are rigged to favor Black and/or Mestizo cultures, to liberals’ great chagrin, the gap still remains.

Now, while 85 is admittedly a better average than the 70-point average found among Blacks in Africa, it still leaves a broad breadth of Black men unaccountable for their actions by way of the fact that the Western world regards an IQ of 70 to be, technically speaking, the line of demarcation for mental retardation. In keeping with that resolve, the American justice system officially regards anyone demonstrating a 70-point or lower IQ to be incapable of distinguishing right from wrong or comprehending the ramifications of their actions; this means that the courts will not sentence Blacks in a manner befitting their crimes. This results in an absurd under-representation of Blacks on death row and a continual recirculation of the most vicious monsters back into society.

Think on these realities for 2013:

  • Blacks were six times likelier to commit murder than non-Blacks
  • Blacks were twelve times likelier to murder a non-Black than to be murdered by one
  • Blacks were responsible for 85% of Black-White interracial violence, hence twenty-seven times likelier to assault Whites than the reverse

To understand the enormity of this discrepancy, one need only translate it into a percentage: Blacks are 2,700% more violent than their White counterparts. If a neighborhood is only 8% Black, the average White victim of violent crime in that area will still almost certainly identify his or her assailant as Black – and for that matter, so will the Black, Brown, and Yellow victims. While Blacks make up less than 13% of the American populace, half are women, and another margin is made up of the very old and the very young, so the egregiously offending demographic (Black males, age 13-35) make up about 3% of the U.S. population. Incredibly, that 3% of the population is responsible for more violence than all other people in the country combined.

To the endless chagrin of liberals, these figures aren’t compiled by any dismissible right-wing source, as so many might wish. They are compiled by the federal government, various universities, and the seemingly endless armadas of liberal “think tanks” and ‘”action committees” living off of government endowments. The ideological partisanship is real enough, but it all runs rigidly against the grudgingly inescapable findings. The evidence is just too monumental to be effectively suppressed or explained away. And though the economic materialist construes this disparity as the result of poverty in the Black communities, this Marxist perspective is entirely undone by the reality that America’s rural areas, despite being quite poor by national standards, do not exhibit any sort of parity of criminal behavior with Black communities. The distinguishing factor, of course, is their White population. No matter where they are – be it America, Australia, New Zealand, Iceland, or any of the countries of Europe – and no matter how poor they happen to be, the worst White community is a more moral and safer place than the best Black community. What’s more, this maxim crosses over boundaries of faith by virtue of the fact that the least Christian White neighborhood is still a many times more moral place than the most Christian Black neighborhood. One may object to these realities, but they remain realities nonetheless. The fact that this sociological law remains to date unnamed is unacceptable. Let the Christian-Newsom Constant be added to the American lexicon.

But propositionalists and egalitarians within the Church will undoubtedly quip: “… but that’s only because the European has been steeped in the Gospel so much longer than the African!” But this too is wholly untrue. St. Philip’s ministry to the Ethiopian eunuch (Acts 8:27-39) marked the first-century inauguration of the Abyssinian church and the institution of the Ethiopic See. African Christianity began contemporaneously with European Christianity, but even where the African’s perspectival expressions of the faith have most approached something which we might regard as orthodox, their spirituality has remained in numerous ways so distinct from our own that we have historically had great difficulty even identifying their expressions of the faith as Christian in the most basic sense. For instance, we find that the African conception of the Christian family has typically been a matriarch, overseen by her mother (a grand-matriarch, if you will), and a male blood relative (usually the lesser matriarch’s brother), together rearing the offspring of several different men. Generally, the children are considered the property not of one family alone, but of the village communally. Hillary Clinton notoriously tried to sell this African model to Americans with the phrase, “It takes a village.” This phrase quickly became a byword with which to mock liberals, but Blacks took immediate offense at this because they understood American Whites to actually be mocking African-“Christian” values. The predilection for this type of familial organization has proven so strong in the African that every colonial society of Blacks in the world has quite unconsciously returned to this model as soon as the grip of European paternalism is loosened. There are admittedly exceptions to this pattern. The Maasai tribe is one: the men take multiple wives, and in order to support their tenuous patriarchy, they perform “circumcision” on all their women to better ensure the fidelity of their wives. Meanwhile, the men still remain gratuitous philanderers. But the exceptions actually prove the rule as well, do they not?

No matter how long Whites have spent trying to imbue them with the idea of the Christian family, Christianized Black societies shed the institution as soon as Whites yield control back to Blacks. Hence, Blacks in America, despite claiming Christianity at a higher ratio than Whites, popularly conclude that “marriage is for White people.” Consider also that African Christians still routinely burn their children and their elderly alive for suspicion of being witches. But of course, Whites used to do the same, didn’t they? No, not exactly. European Christians executed witches, to be sure. But most of the accused were actually guilty of witchcraft. The only real question of propriety arose regarding the matter of “spectral evidence,” i.e., witches appearing in a person’s dreams or as an apparition. Such were at the time legitimate questions of jurisprudence in need of definitive interpretation and resolution. It was the Salem Witch Trials in America which eventually settled these matters, resolving that spectral evidence could not meet the biblical bar for an eyewitness. That was some 300 years ago. Once American courts arrived at this conclusion, the insight was universally embraced across the entirety of the European-stock Western world. Albeit, the hate crime (or more aptly termed “thought crime”) laws of the post-civil rights era have actually shoved modern jurisprudence into a far more primitive state than that of the pre-Salem days – but that’s an issue for another article in itself.

What, then, do African Christians today cite as reasons for suspicion of witchcraft? Typically, they connect bad weather and a child’s profusion (or lack) of talkativeness as indications of witchcraft. The irony of the matter is that while they burn toddlers and grandmothers for their suspected leagues with spirits, the average African church service features blood sacrifice of animalstrances, necromancy (speaking with and asking favors of the dead), and various incantations commanding nature to do their bidding – all in Jesus’ name, of course. Basically, the most devout Christians among them are themselves ostensibly guilty of witchcraft, more so than their mute babiesthat’s for certain. Add to that the fact that they are yet to make any substantial effort to eradicate their peoples’ grievous and ongoing cultural practices of gang-rape, child-rape, and cannibalism.

According to the 2008 National Census, 85.5% of the [Liberian] population practice Christianity. . . .

Liberia is considered a Christian state in practice. Public schools offer biblical studies, though parents may opt their children out. Commerce is prohibited by law on Sundays and major Christian holidays.

Liberia is, on paper at least, one of the most theonomic countries in the world, but it remains a living hell-on-earth nonetheless. The same goes for every other African-Christian land. The question must be asked – why?

Even after two millennia of European missions to and discipleship of the African, White Christians yet find the church environment fostered by Africans difficult to differentiate from the grossest expressions of paganism. One such ethno-cultural handicap seems central to the entire discussion of the African’s interaction with the faith: many a White missionary, explorer, and Bible translator blanched to learn that, prior to colonialism, Blacks were found to possess no corollary in any native dialect for the words “promise,” “bond,” “oath,” “dedication,” “contract,” or “covenant.” And it wasn’t just that they lacked the words; no, they lacked the very concepts. That conceptual vacancy bespoke a uniquely impaired psychology and spiritual condition back of it. Since this continuum of ideas was understood as so indispensable to Christian family, vocation, religion, and civilization, Europeans were compelled to coin like terms on behalf of the African by splicing pre-existing words of the native dialects together in hopes of approximating the needed concepts. The result was that, after the Europeans created written forms to parallel the natives’ vocalizations, African Bibles were translated, and the Gospel sown, using terms like “chained-to,” ‘tied-down,” “tethered,” and so on to communicate the covenantal concepts. Of course, these sorts of ad hoc translations still fell short of the true meaning of our European equivalents, so many thought the African would better understand Christianity if he were only made literate in a European tongue. But this approach of teaching them in English that they are “contracted to their employer” has fared no better than teaching them in a Congolese dialect that they are “chained-to their master.” In fact, a strong case can be made that the former strategy has yielded less fruit than the latter. No, more than a strong case – it’s just a fact.

It wasn’t long ago that Christians were honest about these things. Here is the collective attestation of the Chicago Congress on Africa, as relayed by their own secretary in 1899:

The sterility and unprogressiveness of Negro civilizations, Negro states, are as much due to the paralyzing death-grip of Islam as to nature’s foreclosure of his intellectual powers when she mortgages the growth of his brain after puberty. [p. 71] . . . Africa is the home of the most man-like apes and the most ape-like men. [p. 164] . . . The Negro [has] an animal look . . . a cool, soft, thick skin, mostly hairless and as rancid as a goat’s . . . inherent mental inferiority. [p. 166] . . . The negro is unmoral . . . an overgrown child. [p. 167] . . . . Anarchy is the dominant chord in the Hamite. [p. 169] . . . The lost churches of Abyssinia and Egypt slept in living death. . . . Africa was a land of death-shades . . . Darkness covered the earth, gross darkness the peoples. [p. 178] . . . Gobat considered that Ethiopic Christianity retains enough Christianity to be still called a Christian faith. Since it shows the utmost amount of superstition that can overwhelm a church without killing it, Gobat’s charitable judgment may stand. But acceptance of this view strains our idea of Christianity and the church almost to breaking. . . . Whatever of extravagant ritualism, excessive dogmatism and fatal divorce between ethics and religion disfigures oriental Christianity reveals itself most hideously in Abyssinia. [p. 192] . . . Negro theology when eliminated of superstition retains little religion. [p. 199]1

Black Africans, unlike Europeans or Asians, have no ruins of past civilization, no archeological, written, or even oral history of which to speak. They never created any written languages. Nor did they smelt metals of any kind, invent bricks, or even produce the wheel. As incredible as it may be to contemplate, as a race, they have barely harnessed fire. Aside from the importation and subsidization of all of these on the part of Europeans or Arabs to a lesser degree, Africans would still today be living in pre-paleolithic conditions. For such reasons, Africa was in more Christian times known at once as “The Lost Continent,” “The Pariah Continent,” and most ubiquitously, “The Dark Continent.”

Now, I fully sympathize with the likely reaction of a sensitive reader to balk at all of this focus on the African’s pitiable condition as uncouth or even cruel, but I beg the reader’s forbearance here: this author does not intend to needlessly denigrate or insult anyone, only to make plain the contrast between races which are categorically dismissed in the public square today – because this denial of race, and of the racial distinction between Blacks and Whites in particular, has, is, and will yet still lead to catastrophic violence on our own children if not otherwise addressed. Truth be told, the levels of rape, murder, and mayhem suffered by Whites in close proximity to the Black race are otherwise found nowhere but in theaters of actual war. Plainly put, the cost of denying the reality of race is carnage and death. Truly, in the end, this benefits no one. And as regards Africans in particular, the Scripture itself demands we reckon with the fact that they are “a nation [ethnos, lit. ethnicity] scattered and peeled . . . a people [genos, lit. race] terrible from their beginning onward” (Isa. 18:2, 7). Again, I know these words may seem shocking to the modern Christian, but the Scripture forthrightly distinguishes between peoples, and oftentimes even makes declarative value judgments of whole ethnic groups.

It is on this basis that St. Paul could say, “‘Cretans are always liars, evil beasts, lazy gluttons.’ This testimony is true” (Tit. 1:12-13). No matter how one slices it, the apostle and the prophet (with God back of them) do distinguish between peoples as peoples. God even addresses particulars of ethnic taxonomy such as skin color when He asks rhetorically by the pen of Jeremiah, “Can the Ethiopian change his skin or the leopard his spots?” (Jer. 13:23) So, too, do we find numerous flattering references to Israelites as “white and ruddy” (1 Sam. 16:12; 17:42; Song of Solomon 5:10; Lam.4:7). The fact that the context of the passage in Jeremiah is all about “soiled” coverings intimates that the prophet’s invocation of the African’s color is less than complimentary, to say the least. Contrary to what the 501(c)3 preachers say today, God is obviously not colorblind.

Not without reason, then, does contemporary experience follow suit as babies’ reaction to races is proven to be innate. Our endemic reactions to racial morphology stem from pre-programmed neuro-chemical reactions in the brain. This means that prior to any “racist” programming or “colorblind” indoctrination, children perceive race as real and make certain reflexive value judgments about it as well. The reactions are patterned, consistent, testable, and reproducible. These reactions are endemic to the point of being autonomic, like squinting in the sunlight, or shivering in the cold. They are nothing less than a candid and reflexive apprehension of and reaction to creation. Though children’s reaction to light and dark complexion is marked, it isn’t a matter of color alone. There are other morphological-aesthetic matters at issue as well, but babies’ most negative responses are nonetheless connected to the darkest (Hamitic) faces while their most positive responses are reserved for the lightest (Japhethic) faces.

The conservative luminary Edmund Burke, known to our forefathers simply as “the Christian statesman,” reached the same conclusion long ago in his famous essay on beauty:

[I]t is very hard to imagine, that the effect of an idea so universally terrible in all times, and in all countries, as darkness, could possibly have been owing to a set of idle stories, or to any cause of a nature so trivial, and of an operation so precarious.

Perhaps it may appear on inquiry that blackness and darkness are in some degree painful by their natural operation, independent of any associations whatsoever. . . . [There is] a very curious story of a boy, who had been born blind . . . by [an] operation he received his sight . . . and that some time after, upon accidentally seeing a negro woman, he was struck with great horror at the sight. The horror in this case, can scarcely be supposed to arise from any association. . . . They had both probably their effects from their natural operation.

Christians, having been steeped in the Marxist social theory of the cultural revolution, have recently begun trying to dismiss these innate reactions as resulting from the noetic corruption of our sin nature, but this line of reasoning actually indicts the Holy Spirit Himself by the fact that the Scripture speaks ubiquitously in terms of this very same light/good, dark/bad paradigm (Job 24:13,17; Dan. 2:22; John 3:19-21; 12:46; etc.). This metaphysic of light and dark are so delineated in Scripture because “God is light; in him there is no darkness at all” (1 John 1:5). “And God saw that the light was good; and God separated the light from the darkness” (Gen.1:4). Are we saying then that the Hamitic race is not made in the image of God? Certainly not. We are saying, as the Scripture does, that “darkness hides Him” (Ps. 18:11). The usual markers which reveal the image of God in men are distinctly veiled in the African’s constitution, both inwardly and outwardly.

This state of having the image of God veiled by darkness is not exclusive to the African. All races of men actually share in this condition to a lesser degree as God forms them in the wombs of their mothers: the unborn child cannot reason as we do, or level coherent arguments, or do many other things. Darkness covers him, mind and body. While the secularist deduces from this nascent state that the child lacks personhood, the Christian says, instead, that the child’s humanity is merely veiled or hidden. As with the unborn child then, so too with the African in some respects; it is in no way a denial of the African’s full humanity and right to ethical treatment to be honest about his intellectual and moral capacities. Many are tempted to dismiss this understanding of the African’s condition as “hateful,” but doing so would likewise undermine the pro-life position regarding the unborn as well. If it is a loving position to acknowledge the full humanity but cognitive deficiencies of babies, how could we call it hateful in regard to Blacks? To accept such a resolve for the former and reject it in regard to the latter is to argue that Blacks are actually of greater ontological value, or that they are more human than babies, or that it is otherwise immoral to say any criticism about them – an untenable position, indeed. It would grant the secularists’ argument in toto.

But again, this isn’t about the reality of the African race in particular so much as the reality of race in general. The mapping of the human genome has provided a scientific “amen” in natural revelation unto special revelation (i.e., Scripture) by confirming the identifiability of certain gene clusters which accord precisely with the conventionally perceived and biblically delineated ethnic groups. Now, with nothing more than a swabbing from one’s mouth, geneticists can identify not just the race of an individual, but his country of origin; and in many cases they can even identify with extreme precision the very towns and mountain ranges through which a person’s family line advanced millennia ago. If race were not a reality, all of this would be completely impossible, but, far from an impossibility, people have it done all the time now. And it dare not be forgotten that professor James Watson, the Nobel Prize winner heralded with the “greatest scientific achievement of the 20th century” for his cracking the DNA code, was publicly flogged in the press for telling the obvious truth about race. Bear that in mind the next time someone tells you that “science has proven that race doesn’t exist”: when the greatest living expert on genetics said otherwise, he was immediately shunned by all of the the government-sponsored think tanks and stripped of his funding. The law of political correctness dictates that science is not allowed to draw such conclusions.

But we don’t really even need to delve into the DNA to accept what is plain to our senses: The ability to identify race at a glance has actually proven more accurate than the ability to identify gender. Clearly then, any argument which portrays race as arbitrary due to any rare difficulty in distinguishing one sort from another would all the more undermine the existence of gender. Again, ideas do indeed have consequences: as goes race, so goes gender. To whatever extent we deny the existence of the former, we would be compelled to deny the latter even more emphatically. This a Christian can never do.

Even twins’ studies have proven redundantly that nature accounts for the majority of our behaviors, tastes, and predilections. The nurture aspect of culture is significant, but not to the extent that it overrides one’s nature. As one would expect if genetics were indeed significant in the constitution of human societies, ethnic similarity in marriage is found to result in greater fertility. Then, there’s the issue of xenotransplantation, i.e. heterogeneous organ, blood, marrow, or tissue transplantation. Even radical leftist Louis Stokes, while decrying what he sees as a thoroughly racist system of selection for organ transplantation, grudgingly admits that “disparity is due to biological matching problems.” What Mr. Stokes objects to, then, is not merely some arbitrary or unjust policy of discrimination, but creation itself. His war is with reality, and the God of reality who is behind these things. Yes, legal minds are in a frenzy to somehow undo these natural distinctions; they war against these undeniable and indelible realities because they run contra their egalitarian dreams:

Disparities in access to transplantable organs can be attributed to the strong preference for antigen matching promulgated by the Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network (OPTN). The more similar the donor and the recipient are genetically, the more likely the chances that the antigens will match. Thus kidneys from white donors will most likely be given to white recipients, even where African-Americans, and other individuals with slightly distinct genetic make-up have waited longer on the same recipient list.

Given the organ transplant issue, the experts can a fortiori say:

Compared to organ transplants, bone marrow donations need to be even more genetically similar to their recipients. Though there are exceptions, the vast majority of successful matches take place between donors and patients of the same ethnic background. Since all the immune system’s cells come from bone marrow, a transplant essentially introduces a new immune system to a person. Without genetic similarity between the donor and the patient, the new white blood cells will attack the host body. In an organ transplant, the body can reject the organ, but with marrow, the new immune system can reject the whole body.

Plainly then, multiracial societies exacerbate transplantation problems in every way, and no amount of politically correct platitudes or liberal indignation can undo what God hath wrought. The anti-racialism with which liberal Whites are so enamored does not come cheap. It costs many, many lives. Every year. Every day. And in many different ways. Even the unfortunate mixed-race offspring resulting from the forced integration imposed upon us by the social engineers demonstrate markedly elevated levels of antisocial behavior by comparison to their mono-racial counterparts, as well as higher rates of violence and substance abuse. That’s really saying something when you consider the crime and pathology statistics generated by Blacks and, to a lesser degree, Hispanics (Latin-American-Indians) as well.

While we’re still on the topic of medicine, it should be mentioned that Blacks are uniquely susceptible to rickets, hypertension, kidney disease, diabetes, heart disease, glaucoma, sickle cell anemia, the contraction of HIV, the progression from HIV to AIDS, sociopathy, schizophrenia, psychopathy, and many other anti-social behaviors besides. Black children are prone to shorter gestation periods (a full week shorter than Caucasians), low birth weight, SIDS (crib death), ADD, ADHD, dyslexia, and congenital retardation. Meanwhile, they are also prone to above-average testosterone, higher ratios of fast-twitch muscle fiber, thicker skulls and tooth enamel, denser bones, longer limbs, high VO2 max, and resistance to UV (sunlight) exposure – all of which is to say that their peculiar handicaps are somewhat offset by their collective gifts, just as is the case with every other race.

In the case of Whites, for example, we are more prone to skin cancer, lupus, osteoarthritis and rheumatoid arthritis, as well as many allergies. (Like Blacks, we Whites too have our own distinguishing gifts, which, for both brevity’s and discretion’s sake, I shall entrust to the reflections of the reader.) Every medical facility and individual health provider is constrained by these facts of biology. As much as they may disdain it, they are forced to gather certain ethnic and racial information in order to provide effective care, because said data bears critically on matters of health. Not all treatments work the same on all races – because race is indeed real.

But this brings us to the crux of the anti-racialist argument – their assertion (in the face of all observation) that difficulty in identifying the ethnicity of any one individual actually invalidates the notion of meaningful categorization in all cases. In other words, if an African-European hybrid is neither an African nor an European, then both categories are invalid concepts. These blurry, in-between categories disprove the existence of race in toto. So they allege.

But this is a textbook expression of the logical fallacy known as Loki’s Wager. I think the best analogy fit for the issue is that of the seashore – though we may have difficulty discerning where the land ends and the sea begins, it in no way nullifies the existence of either category. On the contrary, the blurry edges actually serve to define said categories: the exceptions prove the rule. As with sea and shore, so too with the various races of men; the blurry examples solidify our apprehension that there are real racial distinctions. And, ironically enough, even the charge of racism presupposes the existence of race. Otherwise, the anti-racist wouldn’t even be able to recognize the existence of “oppressed” ethnic minorities as minorities, which is to say that the a-racialist/anti-racist is actually just as guilty of racism as the one whom he condemns for racism. The logical conclusion of the liberal White definition of racism is that racism is an inescapable constant for everyone, the anti-racist included. Worse than useless, their perspective can only precipitate endless litigation, covetousness, guilt, enmity, violence, mayhem, and ultimately death. The dream of equality proves a shallow grave for us all.

Of course, in order to be consistent, the anti-racialist would have to demand that Indian tribal holdings undergo “civil rights reappropriations” (read: legalized theft), just as our own communities have, because Indians, like the White race, are merely a social construct with no basis in reality. When the Indians began evicting all the Whites from their reservations last year on the basis that these Whites could not, by definition, qualify as Indians, nary a word was uttered in protest by anyone. In fact, Whites applauded them for taking a stand to protect and preserve their people from encroachment by Whites. It seemed as if the anti-racial dogma had been laid aside, at least in regard to the Indian. The Indian did in fact exist. This year, the Cherokee Nation began evicting Blacks from their sovereign tribal lands on the same legal, moral, and logical grounds on which Whites had been evicted the year prior. But this time, it would not be allowed. Discrimination against Whites as Whites was acceptable, but discrimination against Blacks was – you guessed it – “racist.” So, once again, we return to absurdity: race is apparently acknowledged as real if it preserves the Indian against White encroachment, but race is declared fictional when the Indians seek to protect themselves against encroachment from Blacks. Everyone knows it’s absurd, perhaps none more so than the Indian. This entails that no one can begin to live according to the anti-racialists’ standard, because it indicts the anti-racialist as much as it does the racialist. Even if they’re right, they’re wrong.

Moreover, it is the Scripture which gives us one of the most clearly expressed refutations of the a-racial/anti-racial view, in that the text everywhere presupposes the legitimate, lawful, and ontological reality of races and ethnic groups. Specific terms are used redundantly throughout, such as “Gentiles” and “nations” (Heb. goyim/Grk. ethnos), which mean, just as the Greek hints, “ethnicities.” Similarly, the term “peoples” (Grk. genos) is the root of “genes,” “genetics,” “genealogy,” etc., and may be translated by linguists forthrightly as “races.” There are even many words used in Scripture which denote taxonomical, lineal, and legal exclusion from a race: for instance, the term which appears as “other peoples” (Grk. allogenes) is the composite of two Greek words, allos (“other”) and genos (“races”). And the term rendered “illegitimate” or “bastard” (Heb. mamzer/Grk. nothos) in Deuteronomy 23:2 is candidly understood by linguists to mean “mixed-race, mongrel,” as is proven by its translation in Zechariah 9:6, which says “a mongrel race shall dwell in Ashdod.” These are not controversial matters to language experts, only to modern theologians who desperately seek to obfuscate the plain meaning of the text in favor of an egalitarian sociology. Wherever the text speaks in these overtly ethnic categories (which is virtually everywhere), moderns are compelled by the spirit of our liberal age, perhaps unwittingly, to spiritualize all said references. Even the word which is often rendered as “pagan” (Heb. zuwr) in the Old Testament of our English Bibles literally means “alien” or “foreign.” Any religious connotation assumed when one sees the word “pagan” in those texts is but an anachronistic eisegetical (misinterpretive) imposition made by translators. It is patently a racial or tribal term.

The revelation of Jesus Christ through His holy Word, the Bible, and His atoning work for mankind rests upon His irrefutable status as the pure-blood claimant to the throne of Israel – as the “genealogy of Jesus Christ” (Grk. Christogenea) referenced in the Gospels literally means “the racial history of the Christ.” If we deny the meaningfulness of lineal descent and race, Christ could not then be royalty of the race of Shem, Abraham, and David; nor then would He be the holy Seed promised to come through them as Saviour to all the tribes of men. Such a view is the immediate denial of the Gospel itself. A Christian can have none of it. By definition, then, the anti-racialism which has so recently come to ascendance in the churches is plainly self-contradictory and can be squared neither with Scripture nor with reason. Albeit a pretty lie, it is an obvious lie nonetheless.


  1. Frederick Perry Noble, The Redemption of Africa, Vol. 1

This article is republished from Faith and Heritage under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *