Philia. — Aristotelian concept signifying ‘friendship’ — ethno-cultural consensus between members of the same City.
Aristotle believed that democracy was only possible only within homogeneous ethnic groups. This belief is contrasted with the work of despots who realized that their despotism could only work when the social-order was highly fragmented. This is the conclusion that Robert Putnam’s “Bowling Alone” also came to writing thousands of years after Aristotle.
We learn from Aristotle and Putnam that a multi-ethnic society therefore necessarily begets a top down despotic governmental type approach in order to bring order out of the ethnic/cultural chaos. Indeed, it would not be too much to say that a multi-ethnic society cannot be anything but anti-democratic and chaotic, for it lacks Aristotle’s “philia,” — the profound, flesh-and-blood fraternity of citizens.
Tyrants and despots divide and rule, they want the City divided by ethnic rivalries. Ethnic rivalries within one and the same social-order means that there must be a central power by which the rivalries can be tamed. For those with Despotic type ambitions the pursuit of racial/ethnic and cultural plurality is a must. for in such a social order one finds the indispensable condition for breaking up the a people’s natural sovereignty as found in its racial/ethnic and cultural unity. Ethnic/racial chaos prevents all philia from developing for the obvious reasons that there is very little common ground between people of vastly different racial/ethnic compositions. Even the common ground found among Christians of different ethnic/racial compositions may not be enough for a well oiled social order as we witness in the book of Acts where the Greek and Hebrew widows were at odds with one another in the Church over food distribution.
A national citizenry is formed on the basis of proximity — both in blood and faith — or it is not formed at all. The abstract, integrationist doctrines of the French Revolution envisage man as simply man as an abstract quite without a prior belongingness to a people. For the French Revolutionist types man is an interchangeable cog, a resident, or a consumer. His racial/ethnic makeup is irrelevant. To the contrary the Biblical Christian insists that those things which bind a people together begins with a common lineal heritage and a shared religion/faith. Those elements that are necessary to make a people a people like civic spirit, safe neighborhoods, social harmony of interests, and solidarity, are based not on education, or persuasion alone, or a shared national creedal allegiance abstracted from a shared homogenous reality but instead are based on a cultural unanimity that is found in common values, lifestyles, and innate behaviors largely accounted for by both a shared genetic gene pool and a shared common religion/faith. Societies need something to glue them together; it turns out that having the same basic hardware, and thus the same basic inclinations and abilities, is a necessary but not sufficient condition. This means that without it, you have no glue, but you need other stuff as well to make a society work, chiefly of which is a shared common religion/faith but also including a shared language and history.
If we flip that around, it means that without ethnic nationalism, no society will survive. Mixed-race societies substitute ideology (propositional nationhood) or dogma (Political Correctness) for those innate bonds, but these are not as strong, which is why such societies tend to militarize and become totalitarian in order to preserve some unity.
This social order dysfunction has been pursued in these united States ever since the Hart-Celler Immigration Act of 1965, advocated by Ted Kennedy, Phil Hart, Emanuel Celler and most of the Republican party at the time. It was Southern Democrats like Sam Ervin and Strom Thurmond (who had only recently become Republican) who opposed LBJ’s destruction of America. This was signed into law by LBJ, and it ended the immigration quota system that had been in effect since 1924 and which had been railed against by those who were only marginally American for decades. The proponents of the Hart – Celler act promised up and down that it would not change the demographics and so ethnic composition of the nation;
“First, our cities will not be flooded with a million immigrants annually. Under the proposed bill, the present level of immigration remains substantially the same … Secondly, the ethnic mix of this country will not be upset … Contrary to the charges in some quarters, [the bill] will not inundate America with immigrants from any one country or area, or the most populated and deprived nations of Africa and Asia … In the final analysis, the ethnic pattern of immigration under the proposed measure is not expected to change as sharply as the critics seem to think’.
US Sen. Edward Kennedy
Democrat — Massachusetts
Senate. Senator Hiram Fong, the first Asian-American Senator and the son of Cantonese immigrants, stated to the Senate Subcommittee on Immigration and Naturalization that,
“Asians represent six-tenths of 1 percent of the population of the United States … with respect to Japan, we estimate that there will be a total for the first 5 years of some 5,391 … the people from that part of the world will never reach 1 percent of the population …Our cultural pattern will never be changed as far as America is concerned”.
Attorney General at the time Nicholas Katzenbach testified that,
“This bill is not designed to increase or accelerate the numbers of newcomers permitted to come to America. Indeed, this measure provides for an increase of only a small fraction in permissible immigration.”
Robert Kennedy stated that if the bill was passed;
“I would say for the Asia-Pacific Triangle [immigration] would be approximately 5,000, Mr. Chairman, after which immigration from that source would virtually disappear; 5,000 immigrants would come the first year, but we do not expect that there would be any great influx after that.”
Despite these assurance by 1980, *most* immigrants were coming from Latin America, Asia, and Africa, and at least 7 million entered the US legally during that decade. There has perhaps never been in all of US history such a deficit between political predictions about the impact of a piece of legislation and the reality that followed. When this Bill was passed 88.6% of the total US population in 1960 was white. In 2020 the percentage of the total population of Non-Hispanic white people is around 58% of America’s population. This is a decrease from the 2010 census when non-Hispanic whites made up 63.7% of the population.
All of this was accelerated and made worse by President Ronald Regan when he declared amnesty for illegal immigrants in 1986 which did nothing but provide an incentive for even more illegals to come and enter America illegally. Reagan perhaps did as much as LBJ to insure the browning of America. At least Reagan had the good sense to regret his signing of the 1986 immigration act. According to Ronald Reagan himself, as told to his trusted long-time friend and U.S. Attorney General Edwin Meese, the biggest mistake of his presidency was signing the 1986 amnesty for what turned out to be more than half the five million illegal immigrants in the country.
Clearly, we are now suffering the repercussions of the 1965 Hart-Celler immigration act and the 1986 Reagan Amnesty. This is clear to anybody who doesn’t deny reality — which would include people like America’s clergy class. Men like Rich Lusk, Doug Wilson, Michael Foster, Darrel Doane, James White, Voddie Baucham, J. Ligon Duncan, Russell Moore, John Piper, Al Mohler, Tim Keller, Sean Michael Lucas continue to insist things like “there is no such thing as race,” or “race is a social construct” or “race is only about the amount of melanin once does or does not have,” or “while ethnicity might exist race certainly doesn’t exist.” Try selling that bilge to the patient waiting to get a bone marrow transplant.
The clergy in the formerly White Hat denominations are the villains now in the work of preventing a solution to our immigration / social-order problems. All we get from the clergy crowd is Gnostic pollyanna-isms like, “But the gospel has the power to destroy nature so that all that has been true throughout history no longer need be true when it comes to building social orders that have a harmony of interests.” However, with these kind of statements or statements similar to this we find the clergy corps going all French Revolutionaries on us by insisting just as Danton and Robespierre did in the day that man is just an abstraction that has no belongingness that he is born with that has to be taken into consideration.
In the end the modern clergy corps is contributing to the genocide of the White man in the West and that all in the name of “the love of Jesus.” Yes, that is right… GENOCIDE
Genocide is defined in Article 2 of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (1948) as,
“any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such: killing members of the group; causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part ; imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; [and] forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.”
The White man in the West is now being deliberately inflicted upon him via immigration patterns and legislation conditions of life calculated to bring about the White man’s physical destruction in whole or in part.
How is this Christianity to embrace this suicidal altruism which is being foisted upon us by the clergy corps in America?
