How many nations unto God?

This week I received an email from a reader which I responded to and to which she then replied. The emails were respectful and thoughtful, and I appreciated them. In her second email she wrote the following:

To clarify why I said you might not be on the side you think you’re on, in most of your articles I see the divide you paint as male, white, enlightened, smart, nationalist on one side, and female, black or brown, dull-thinking, stupid, immigrant on the other side. But there are men on the right side and men on the wrong side, women on the right side and women on the wrong side, white nationalists on the right side and on the wrong side, minorities on the right side and the wrong side. This isn’t completely consistent – there are hints that you think women *could* be on the right side, hints that immigrants could be welcome if they assimilate into the host culture – but the overall tone and assumptions that I see in your writing seem to paint the divide as I have stated.

I can see why a reader who only began following my blog late last year might be confused as to my standing on these matters. The world of course is not so simple as to be merely black and white, and to assume so is simple ignorance. But in all discourses there exists both a macro and a micro level, something to which I have had to refer on numerous occasions when commenters misunderstand or deliberately seek to distort my intentions.

The efforts of the elites over the decades since the end of the Second World War to create a world of nations operating under a globalist sphere with the inherent loss of national sovereignty has been a disaster for everyone except those at the top. Free speech, free trade, and free movement have resulted in a world approaching George Orwell’s 1984 nightmare. People today are deeply confused as to their place in life as a result of this, and with the turning away from Christianity they seek to latch onto anything while doing their individual best to believe in their own inherent goodness.

So loving and welcoming refugees makes you good. Caring for the environment and believing in climate change makes you good. Not eating meat makes you good. Loving homosexuals and promoting gay marriage makes you good. Encouraging the madness of transvestites and other mental illnesses makes you good. If you are white, promoting all other races over your own makes you good. Proclaiming yourself a feminist makes you good. Encouraging women to have abortions or get divorced makes you good.

In other words, we live in a convoluted mess where the things that you publicly believe in determine who you are. As such it is not possible to simply declare that women are bad or men are good or any other broad proclamation. What is true is that on the macro level there are clear lines forming across these and other areas of identity politics. For now a prog leftist heterosexual white male can still comfortably burrow his way into the warm embrace of those who self declare that they are on the right side of history. I take these fools to task as I encourage and support women who reject the prevailing orthodoxy and dedicate their adult lives to getting married and raising a family. But when all of this eventually implodes as it most certainly will, people will no longer have the luxury of self-determination in these matters.

In other words, there is coming the day when the color of your skin will indeed determine your tribe and your nation, as it once was. God after all created the separate nations for a reason. Which leads me back to the email at hand.

For example, in one of your articles you say “And by nation I refer to the biblical understanding of what a nation is; a collection of people bound together by a common race and religion, not the perverted line on a map idea of a nation.” But that’s not right. The biblical idea of a nation is people bound together by a common worship, which is why people like Ruth the Moabitess can join the nation of Israel and even be part of the line of the Messiah. This idea is expanded much further in the New Testament: it is not the children of Abraham (genetically) who are the true people of God, but the children of Abraham’s faith – i.e. those who have faith in the God of Abraham. If lines are drawn based on race AND religion, that precludes the possibility of anyone crossing over to another side – the only options are to be loyal or traitorous to your own side.

This is simply not true, which is being generous. A few months ago Vox Day linked to the following article in The Federalist which examines the case that the bible favored individual nation states over empires.

Was there a viable alternative to universal empire? The ancient Near East had much experience with localized political power in the form of city-states. But for the most part, these were helpless before imperial armies and the ideology of universal empire that motivated them. It is in the Bible that we find the first sustained presentation of a different possibility: a political order based on the independence of a nation living within limited borders alongside other independent nations.

By nation, I mean a number of tribes with a common cultural inheritance, especially a language or religion, and a past history of acting as a body for the common defense and other large-scale enterprises. The Bible systematically promotes the idea that the members of a nation should regard one another as “brothers,” and Mosaic law offered the Israelites a constitution that would bring them together in what would today be called a national state.

The king of such a state would be drawn “from among your brothers.” Its prophets, too, would be “from among you, from among your brothers.” And so would its priests, appointed to guard the traditional laws of the nation and teach them to the king “so that his thoughts should not be lifted above his brothers.” Moreover, Moses sets boundaries for Israel, instructing his people to keep their hands off the lands of neighboring kingdoms like Moav, Edom, and Ammon, which deserve their own independence. As he tells them in God’s name:

Take good heed of yourselves therefore. Meddle not with [the children of Esau], for I will not give you of their land. No, not so much a foot’s breadth. Because I have given Mt. Seir to Esau for a possession. . . . Do not harass Moav, nor contend with them in battle, for I will not give you of their land for a possession, because I have given Ar to the children of Lot for a possession. . . . And when you come near, opposite the children of Ammon, harass them not, nor contend with them, for I will not give you of the land of the children of Ammon any possession, for I have given it to the children of Lot for a possession.

Nor are these passages unique. Throughout the Bible, we find that the political aspiration of the prophets of Israel is not empire but a free and unified nation living in justice and peace amid other free nations.

The Bible thus puts a new political conception on the table: a state of a single nation that is united, self-governing, and uninterested in bringing its neighbors under its rule. This state is governed not by foreigners responsible to a ruler in a distant land but by kings and governors, priests and prophets drawn from the ranks of the nation itself—individuals who are, for just this reason, thought to be better able to stay in touch with the needs of their own people, their “brothers,” including the less fortunate among them.

Vox had the following observation on the quoted passage:

As one Christian theologian has observed, the Bible mentions all the nations of the world coming together in unity precisely three times. And on each of those three occasions, they are coming together in united opposition to God.

We are indeed in opposition to God, and I will publish an article tomorrow with an excellent and depressing example of this. But to clarify, nations are not bound by common worship. After spending two years living in Uganda I can confidently declare that I have nothing in common with Ugandans nor their culture. And yet the vast majority of them are Christians. Can I then move to Uganda and declare myself Ugandan? Of course not, no more than a Ugandan can move to Australia and declare himself to be of my patronage. Which is why the bastardized concept of hyphenated nationalities was created; our imaginary Ugandan friend would have to be a Ugandan-Australian. Which is like declaring yourself to be a woman-man, a concept not unknown in this traumatic age.

I write to expose the lies and to seek the truth, a dangerous business at the best of times as nobody appreciates a truth teller and I do not possess a court jester costume. But I appreciate correspondence of this type as it helps to keep me on my toes, and particularly as the great dance is only just beginning.

9 thoughts on “How many nations unto God?

  1. JohnR

    You’re both right.

    The Greek word used in the Bible to describe nationality is “Ethnos or ἔθνος” from which we also have words like ethnic, ethnicity etc. As you say: “people bound together by a common race and religion”.

    Christianity is indeed transnational though – the Kingdom of God transcends all earthly governments.

    Galatians 3:26-29
    You are sons of God through your faith in Christ Jesus. For all of you who were baptised into Christ have put on Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor freeman, there is neither male nor female, for you are all one in union with Christ Jesus. Moreover, if you belong to Christ, you are really Abraham’s offspring, heirs with reference to a promise.

    Revelation 14:6
    He had everlasting good news to declare to those who dwell on the earth, to every nation and tribe and tongue and people.

    ἔχοντα εὐαγγέλιον αἰώνιον εὐαγγελίσαι ἐπὶ τοὺς καθημένους ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς καὶ ἐπὶ πᾶν ἔθνος καὶ φυλὴν καὶ γλῶσσαν καὶ λαόν

    Like

  2. JohnR

    You’re both right.

    The Greek word used in the Bible to describe nationality is “Ethnos or ἔθνος” from which we also have words like ethnic, ethnicity etc. As you say: “people bound together by a common race and religion”.

    Christianity is indeed transnational though – the Kingdom of God transcends all earthly governments.

    Galatians 3:26-29
    You are sons of God through your faith in Christ Jesus. For all of you who were baptised into Christ have put on Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor freeman, there is neither male nor female, for you are all one in union with Christ Jesus. Moreover, if you belong to Christ, you are really Abraham’s offspring, heirs with reference to a promise.

    Revelation 14:6
    He had everlasting good news to declare to those who dwell on the earth, to every nation and tribe and tongue and people.

    ἔχοντα εὐαγγέλιον αἰώνιον εὐαγγελίσαι ἐπὶ τοὺς καθημένους ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς καὶ ἐπὶ πᾶν ἔθνος καὶ φυλὴν καὶ γλῶσσαν καὶ λαόν

    Like

  3. Dave

    This is it, this is ground zero – a (I assume white) woman cannot comprehend the realities of the West in 2019 in any meaningful way that relates to the destruction, the growing depravity, the ending of greatness, and ponders why many Western men react negatively to their views and the resulting death of nations.

    How ignorant and indignant of your own tribes history and successes (and the reasons why) do you really need to be?

    Like

  4. Katie

    I’m not sure why being a white woman means I cannot comprehend the realities of the West and the tragedy of where we are now compared to where we once were. Unless you are saying that a certain genetic background or skin color (apart from culture and religion) is the sole magical reason for “my own tribe’s” success – then you are right, I don’t understand that.

    And Adam, you’re right – I was wrong to say “the biblical idea of nation is people bound by a common worship.” Saying “nation” in that context obscured the issue. I should have said something like “the biblical idea is that people, even of different nations, can be bound by a common worship.” That religion and race are not inextricably bound together, and that religion is of greater importance than race (not that ethnic nationality is meaningless, but that the point of integration can be a common worship).

    To clarify another possible point of misunderstanding, I’m not talking about “cultural” religion – the kind you are born into. I mean what a person truly believes about the world and about ultimate reality. I am an American woman, but from my travels and the people I have met I can say that I have far more ultimately in common at a basic level with other sincere Christians (from Africa, say), then I do with other white moms whose lives look much more similar to mine on the surface but who hate God. Does this mean I would say I am African? No, but it means that sincere African Christians are my brothers and sisters. I value and respect my own culture, especially insofar as it has been built by men and women who do share my Christian values, and am saddened that much of that culture is crumbling around me, rotting from the top down. It hasn’t been the influx of immigrants in America that have caused the damage, it is absolutely the predominantly white “intelligentsia” preaching doctrines from a different religion, so to speak, that have been the wrecking ball to our culture.

    To put it in a nutshell, I think you are saying that nationality defines your most bedrock, basic human identity. And I am saying no, who you worship defines your most basic, bedrock human identity. That might be our point of difference.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. Apex Predator

      Christian apologists, regardless of gender (but especially wahmen), have been a rather large part of what is currently the agent of destruction for Western Culture. There is manifiold evidence of this everywhere around us. So you multiple paragraphs of mental gymnastics and hand-waving about your “African sisters in Christ’ are as poisonous of an ideology as there has ever been.

      We made a dreadful mistake giving most (not all, but most) women agency because you are simply built along an entirely different set of operating principles than men. There is nothing wrong with this if you are being directed and guided to where these traits have merit. Nurturing, caring, compassion, etc. are your guiding principles. When you externalize these they turn into pathological altruism of the sort we currently see all across the west.

      tl;dr: You are wrong in so many ways I cannot bother to write the several paragraphs necessary to poke holes into your various logic fallacies. Stick with what you are good at, following men and channeling your helpful, caring, and peacemaking nature to those who deserve it and will reciprocate it.

      Like

    2. Dave

      Genetics are pretty much the biggest factor of all when it comes to historical success of any race. Whites have that unique blend of DNA that has proven the most successful of all (by a mile). The statistical data concerning everything from achievements to criminality all point to the same basic race-level reality regardless of any leftist’s ability to stomach it.

      All the wishful thinking (or should I say ‘feels’) that you may have about your beloved immigrants and all the magical fairy dust they sprinkle is irrelevant given you offer no factual evidence for your world views – since there actually isn’t any.

      >”I’m not sure why being a white woman means I cannot comprehend the realities of the West and the tragedy of where we are now compared to where we once were.”

      That’s easy, because comprehension takes a sideline when you are a supporting enabler of the current clown world madness that infects the West. Where we once were is the same as saying before women got the vote.

      Like

  5. Post Alley Crackpot

    Because I don’t actually give a toss about being “right” according to prevailing norms of “rightness” necessarily, and because I sense that some of these “letters to the editor” are merely excuses to get worked up on certain subjects because it provides the equivalent of a mental wank and a mental towelling off afterwards, I shall now offer the following tankers full of gasoline to drop on various landfill-sized dumpster fires …

    Yes, there are more smart men than smart women, deal with it.

    Even Milo couldn’t resist getting in on this action.

    Let’s say you’re a not-so-average, not-so-run-of-the-mill super-genius with intelligence of +5 SD or so … and you think you’re going to find a chick to hang with who is going to understand anything you’re doing?

    Take the 2 SD difference challenge: +3 SD = 145 IQ for Europeans, 148 IQ for Americans (different SD to IQ point equivalences).

    So mister super-genius, where are you going to find the H4WTB4B3Z who have 145+/148+ IQ?

    And if that corresponds to a country or a group of countries, that might be your real home in the world, and if not, it’s up to you and a few of your super-genius friends to build that country …

    But if we’re going to address stereotypes, then why doesn’t the stereotype of stupid, dull-thinking, and female apply nearly always at the extreme because the numbers tend to prove that out?

    OH OH OH … *Sam Kinison shouting voice*

    That outrage you’re feeling right now?

    That’s just a reaction to the proof of the matter at the extreme and the fact that you still don’t get what this is really about: exceptio probat regulam in casibus non exceptis.

    Oh, and Hi Aeoli Pera: 160+ IQ BUNZ -> OVENZ. 🙂

    Liked by 1 person

  6. MatrixTransform

    I own the capital.
    Be that money, assets, culture, knowledge, law … or my own two hands .
    The colour of my skin is irrelevant.
    As is the deity I submit to.

    What I dont submit to is a bunch of ham-fisted gibberish rhetoric designed to take my capital.
    I will fight to retain it…just like I fought to attain it.

    Arm yourselves with something more than words.

    just saying

    Like

  7. TechieDude

    “…I have far more ultimately in common at a basic level with other sincere Christians (from Africa, say), then I do with other white moms whose lives look much more similar to mine on the surface but who hate God”

    This is the crux of the argument that I get into a few times with Adam. I generally don’t buy the racial-tribal notion. It may eventually go that way after decades. But in the short term, there are those supposedly on team whitey that I have absolutely zero in common, other than skin color. Matter of fact, I’d hardly call them “Team” members, as they consistently undermine the team.

    I cannot conceive of a day where I’d go to the mattresses for one of these people over friends of mine who I share nearly everything in common but skin. It may happen. Probably not in my lifetime.

    And, Apex, the agents of destruction are anything but Christian. In the US the immigration problem is due to both parties self dealing, ignoring the will of the people and purposefully reneging on their sworn duties as representatives.

    Liked by 1 person

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.