- That culture is the external expression of religious belief in union with race and place.
There are several ways to say the above.
1.) Culture is the outward expression of a particular people’s inward belief.
2.) Culture is a particular people’s religion externalized.
3.) Culture is the result of pouring a particular theology over a particular people.The idea here is that while culture, faith, and race/ethnicity can be distinguished they can never be separated. This explanation also works to make us see that differences among peoples can not be attributed solely or even primarily to culture. Culture is the product of race/ethnicity combined with theology/religion and as the product can not be attributed as the primary distinguishing reality between different races/ethnicity so culture can not be said to be what makes peoples distinct. The primary distinguishing reality is race/ethnicity and belief.
This is not to deny that individuals or small groups of individuals cannot be enculturated into a culture that is heterogenous of their own. There are many examples of children, for example, on the American frontier who were kidnapped by savage American Indians who were once finally rescued and who would never be able to mentally leave their forced enculturated experience.
- That the ideal Christian social order is an extension of the family concept, considered at a larger scale. That Biblically, a nation is a large group of people of common patrilineal descent, living in a common geographical location, and having a shared religion, history, language, and civil government (a religio-ethnostate).What is given above is just the standard definition of nation as etymologically derived from the Latin word, “nation.”
nation (n.)
c. 1300, nacioun, “a race of people, large group of people with common ancestry and language,” from Old French nacion “birth, rank; descendants, relatives; country, homeland” (12c.) and directly from Latin nationem (nominative natio) “birth, origin; breed, stock, kind, species; race of people, tribe,” literally “that which has been born,” from natus, past participle of nasci “be born” (Old Latin gnasci), from PIE root *gene- “give birth, beget,” with derivatives referring to procreation and familial and tribal groups. The word is used in English in a broad sense, “a race of people an aggregation of persons of the same ethnic family and speaking the same language,” and also in the narrower sense, “a political society composed of a government and subjects or citizens and constituting a political unit; an organized community inhabiting a defined territory within which its sovereignty is exercised.” The reason that a nation is to be comprised of a particular race and ethnicity as the ideal social order is because such a social order has the most potential for a harmony of interests among the people occupying a social order. If a social order is polyglot and multicultural the potential for friction increases in relation to the percentages of the polyglot presence.
Rudyard Kipling explains all this perfectly,
The Stranger within my gate,
He may be true or kind,
But he does not talk my talk–
I cannot feel his mind.
I see the face and the eyes and the mouth,
But not the soul behind.The men of my own stock,
They may do ill or well,
But they tell the lies I am wanted to,
They are used to the lies I tell;
And we do not need interpreters
When we go to buy or sell.The Stranger within my gates,
He may be evil or good,
But I cannot tell what powers control–
What reasons sway his mood;
Nor when the Gods of his far-off land
Shall repossess his blood.The men of my own stock,
Bitter bad they may be,
But, at least, they hear the things I hear,
And see the things I see;
And whatever I think of them and their likes
They think of the likes of me.This was my father’s belief
And this is also mine:
Let the corn be all one sheaf–
And the grapes be all one vine,
Ere our children’s teeth are set on edge
By bitter bread and wine.– Rudyard Kipling
- That sin is a universal deformity in human nature, and that no perfect society is possible on this side of Heaven. That Christians should work to limit human error by seeking those conditions which are inherently productive of a harmony of interests, both in marriage and in society at large. That a harmony of interests naturally exists between people who are similar. Of course, this presupposes that peoples qua peoples are not the same. This is of course contested today but the father of Western civilization never believed in the blessings of a polyglot multicultural social order.The point about marriage above is the same as the point of social orders as a whole. Marriages are going to be successful in relation to the amount of common ground that the parties contracting marriage share. As such just as polyglot social orders are unwise so are polyglot marriages unwise.
- That the God of the Old Testament, who forbade interracial, interreligious marriages to His covenant nation, is the same as the God of the New Testament. That marriage between parties who are not naturally congenial is unequal yoking. That unequal yoking in marriage or in society at large is destructive of Christian harmony, association, and growth.
That God forbad interreligious marriages to His covenant nation is not controversial. That God forbad interracial marriages to His covenant nation is controversial but the weight of Scripture supports the contention. Following Calvin’s perspective on boundaries and distinctions, Rushdoony invokes the case laws forbidding mixing as support that God forbad interracial mixing:
“These laws forbid the blurring of God-ordained distinctions. The nature and direction of sin is to blur and finally erase all the God-ordained boundaries … God’s laws are case laws. If vegetable seeds are not to be mingled, nor an ass and a horse crossbred, then in the human realm it follows that the confusion of God-ordained boundaries is even more serious.”
(RJR, Commentary on Leviticus 19:19, p.230)
This forbidding is seen most clearly in the book of Ezra where the women of non-Israeli origin and their children are commanded to be separated from Israel. If the problem in the book of Ezra was only religious then it is hard to see why the women or children would have been commanded to depart since doubtless many were not any more disobedient to God’s laws than their disobedient Israeli husbands.
It can be conceded that as an exception a social order will be able to survive a polyglot marriage here or there but when polyglot marriages are pursued and pushed by the social order as equally normative, as we are seeing now in the West, it is a certainty that such a social order will eventually go into abeyance. It will also experience genocide as the original stock is eventually bred out of existence.
Rushdoony understood this danger when he wrote,
.‘Full equality’ means that no differences can be tolerated with respect to race, color, creed, economics, and all things else. THIS MEANS THE PLANNED DESTRUCTION OF THE VERY ELEMENTS OF SOCIETY WHO HAVE MADE OUR CIVILIZATION.”
R. J. Rushdoony
Roots of Reconstruction — pg. 581Of course, the enemies of the Christian white man understand this and are pursuing just this course in order to overthrow whatever residual influence of Biblical Christianity that remains in the West.
As a final note, for the purposes of clarification, polyglot marriages wherein both partners are in submission to Christ and in support of Biblical Christianity should be supported as much as possible within the believing community with the hope that the children of such marriages will avoid the same polyglot marriages that their parents contracted.
