One of the sticking points between Doug Wilson and I is the definition of what constitutes ethnic animosity and/or ethnic vainglory. We both agree that ethnic animosity and/or ethnic vainglory is not Christian but as to how to define that, well, the devil is in the details isn’t it?
Before we work on a definition on my end, I have to note that raising the warning to whites of the dangers of ethnic animosity and/or ethnic vainglory, in this cultural moment is, in my estimation, akin to one of Noah’s sons on the ark going bat-snit crazy warning about a coming drought while the rains fell down and the floods came up. “Umm… thanks for the warning son, but for right now could you please just cover that leak in the ark with some pitch?”
We all know of some of the more sensational cases where minority crime on whites is exposed. Eliza Fletcher’s recent kidnapping, rape, and murder is merely the most recent case. Another horror case was that of Channon Gail Christian, aged 21, and Hugh Christopher Newsom Jr., aged 23 in Knoxville, Tennessee. What we may well not know is how common place these kinds of crime are. This booklet pulls back the curtain and forces us to ask Doug Wilson what people group he should be raising a warning to in terms of ethnic animosity and ethnic vainglory.
There are whole books dedicated to this ethnic animosity towards white phenomenon. Colin Flaherty’s “White Girl Bleed A Lot,” and “Don’t Make the Black Kids Angry,” chronicles ethnic animosity by blacks against whites. We also have the whole recent uprising of “Black Lives Matter.” Yet DW suggests that it is the ethnic animosity/vainglory of white kinists who DW needs to warn the world about?
One wonders if DW would call it ethnic vainglory or animosity if the white kinists brought to the attention of people what Jesse Jackson said a few years ago;
“There is nothing more painful to me at this stage in my life than to walk down the street and hear footsteps… then turn around and see somebody white and feel relieved.”
Per the United Nations definition of genocide it is white people who are being genocided. 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 (see “Color of Crime” stats); causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group (government school attendance); deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part1 (current Immigration crisis) ; imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; [and] forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.”
And yet what we get from DW lecturing white Christians is, “no ethnic animosity/vainglory please.” This is like lecturing Custer at the Little Big Horn to“take it easy on the Sioux please.”I mean, “yes, of course, ethnic animosity is sinful and to practice it is sin, however how about some warnings against suicidal altruism Doug?” That would seem more appropriate to the season.
If I could I would ask DW; if he counts it racial animosity/vainglory for men, for example, to engage in the natural tendency to associate with those of their own race and culture? Is it racial animosity/vainglory to prefer the company of one’s own people?
As to what exactly defines ethnic animosity/ vainglory perhaps we might consider the wisdom of the past on what it is not. I mean DW is always reminding us (following Chesterton) not to tear down a boundary marker before we first know why it was put up to begin with. There has been boundary markers in the past of what does and does not constitute ethnic animosity/vainglory.
“If the Mosaic code, so far as it is adapted to our country, age, and religion, were followed; one half of the miseries of society and the whole of the blunders of politicians would be averted. Under this code, the love of the Hebrew was first to be expended in the bosom of his own family, next upon his own tribe, and finally, upon his nation. Marriages were strictly forbidden with other nations, and to some extent interdicted with other tribes. The Hebrew woman marrying in another tribe forfeited her inheritance. Marriages of that kind were rare. Each tribe was desirous to excel in numbers, as well as in the arts of war and peace. So it became a reproach to be barren.
The whole Mosaic economy fostered and promoted sectional love and sectional pride. It had none of the hypocritical cant of modern philanthropy about “the great heart of humanity” and “knowing no North, no South, no East, no West.” — [see Melville’s Redburn]. On the contrary, it taught most distinctly that the boundaries of each tribe must be recognized, and that the duty and the love of each Hebrew belonged specially to his own tribe.”
‘The Land We Love’, Vol. 2 — p. 366.
“Every sinner, as he is a sinner, is to be hated; every man, as he is a man, is to be loved. Let us love men so that we love not their sins; and love them for that which God made them, not that which by sin they made themselves. For degrees, one man is nearer than another. It is certain there are degrees; for to omit our duties towards our parents is worse than to omit the same duties towards a stranger. The order of our love must be thus: to God, to our own souls, to the souls of our brethren before our own bodies, to our own bodies before other men’s, to the bodies of our neighbors.
[Of the bodies of our neighbors there are also degrees to be followed]: first, to them that have need; and of those, first to the household of faith (Gal. 6:10); and of them, first to our countrymen, brethren and companions (Ps. 122:8); and of these, first them that are our friends and acquaintances; and of them, first to them of our own household and kindred (1 Tim. 5:8); and of our kindred, first the wife (Gen. 2:24, 1 Sam. 1:8).
Of the manner of our love: ‘not so much as thyself, but after the same manner.’ Because thou lovest God, (and therefore all things which are God’s), for this cause love thy brother. pp. 172-3. The rule is that the love to myself must be the rule of the love to my neighbor, and so it is not required that I should do any more for my neighbor than I would do for myself.” p. 209.
Chair of the KJV Translation work
‘Pattern of Catechistical Doctrine and Other Minor Works’
We all need to remember a foundational tactic of the Marxists here on this subject. The Marxists discredit something wholesome and natural by inextricably linking it to something sinful. So, if you like to socialize with other whites, its because you hate minorities. If you prefer to provide for your own family, it reveals that you hate immigrants, or “image bearers.” If you prefer that this country be primarily for people of the West it reveals that you are just stuffed to the gills with racial animosity. And if you commit the sin of noticing racial/ethnic patterns — even in the context of raising a sound and necessary warning — you are guilty of committing the sin of racial animosity/vainglory.
If I have to choose between being wrongly charged with racial animosity/vainglory or being rightly charged with attempting to avoid genocide, “I’ll take two of the latter in a to go bag please.”