Can Christians Be Nationalists?

Download the book

 

1. What Is Nationalism?

Following the success of Donald Trump and his “America First” platform, the great political issue of the day has become the conflict between nationalism and globalism. This conflict is not limited to the United States as can be seen from the Brexit vote in the UK and the continuing growth of nationalist movements around the world. Christians must make a thorough investigation of the issue and decide where God wants us to stand.

Although the mainstream media has only begun covering the conflict recently, the friction between nationalism and globalism has been growing for years. On the side of the globalists, we find the United Nations, the Democrat Party, many of the major Republican donors and Washington insiders, Marxist intellectuals, radical environmentalists, big-government socialists, all of the major newspapers, all of the major TV networks, and all of theHollywood liberals. On the side of the nationalists, we find the mass of Republican voters,constitutionalists, patriots, and small business owners. Given the groups that support the globalist cause, one would think that picking sides in this conflict would be an easy choice for conservative Christians.

This clear-cut issue has been unnecessarily confused by misguided Christians who think that Biblical religion can somehow join forces with the modern day globalist Babel that is seeking to bring about a totalitarian, secular order. Much of the confusion surrounding globalism and nationalism comes from a misunderstanding of key terms and concepts. By analyzing these terms and by looking at what the Bible says about these issues, we can find an answer to this pressing question.

The first key term to understand is “nationalism.” In the context of the current struggle between nationalism and globalism, nationalism simply means a belief that separate nations should exist as sovereign, independent cultural and political units. Globalists both within the Church and in the mainstream media frequently repeat the lie that nationalism is somehow inherently based on “hatred” or “selfishness,” or that nationalism will inevitably lead to war while globalism will lead to peace. But this is obviously untrue, as the historical record is full of atrocities and genocides committed by the followers of globalist ideologies such as communism and Islam. Nationalists simply believe that national sovereignty grants all men the greatest possible share of personal fulfillment and prosperity. Nationalism is the necessary corollary of the traditional American belief in independence, federated authority and self-sufficiency. Bringing individuals under the consolidated rule of distant, meddling bureaucrats does not promote prosperity on the national level, and it certainly does not work any better on the international level.

The next term to look at is “globalism.” Globalism is the belief that it is always a good thing to erode national sovereignty and traditional cultural distinctions. Those who favor globalism cheer every new power that the United Nations and European Union assume for themselves. They cheer every new “global warming” treaty that removes autonomy from individuals and small businesses. They cheer every new form of political correctness that turns conservative Christians into thought criminals. Globalists have an unwavering faith that adding more regulations, more bureaucracy, and more standardization can only result in greater
happiness for mankind.

When approaching the nationalist/globalist conflict from a Christian perspective, we must consider carefully what type of globalist order is being built. It should be obvious to even the most casual observer that the chief proponents and financial backers of the new globalist system are extremely hostile towards Christianity. There can be no serious doubt that if the globalist system continues on its current trajectory, we will be living under a thoroughly anti-Christian order.

 

2. What Is The Church?

Despite the obvious fact that globalists regard conservative Christians as enemies, many Christians are tempted to assist the globalist cause, and they justify their decision by misinterpreting certain Bible verses. While we will look at these key Bible verses in detail later on, it is first necessary to establish what exactly the Bible says the Church is. A misunderstanding of what the Church is lies at the root of much of the confusion regarding the contemporary Christian position on nationalism and globalism.

The Church is the body of Christ, the congregation of all those who have been born again in the Spirit and have a saving faith in the redemption of the cross. We acknowledge and rejoice in the fact that the Church transcends all national boundaries and is global in scope. Before his ascension, Jesus commanded his disciples, “Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost”(Matthew 28:19). This command is clear: the Gospel is to be preached to all men and women regardless of their nationality. But just because the Church has a global mission, that does not mean that contemporary secular globalism is a friend of the Church.

Jesus told his accusers that his disciples would not take up arms to advance his kingdom because his kingdom is not of this world,“My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is my kingdom not from hence”(John 18:36). Jesus has commanded that we advance his kingdom throughout the earth, but he has commanded us to do so by preaching the Gospel, not by military force or political coercion.

The New Testament Church did not make any effort to join all Christians into one global political unit or one state, nor did the early Church teach that becoming a Christian destroyed one’s national identity. Even the Apostle Paul, who spoke more strongly than anyone else about the irrelevance of Jewish customs under the new covenant, retained such a strong attachment to his fellow Jews that he could say, “For I could wish that myself were accursed from Christ for my brethren, my kinsmen according to the flesh”(Romans 9:3). It is globalism, not Christianity, that demands the erasure of distinct ethnic ties.

The Church is global in scope because it rules in the hearts of all the faithful from every tribe and tongue. Church history provides us with no precedent for the current globalist scheme of absorbing all nations into one political unit and destroying all national distinctions. Islam and communism have pursued this path, but not the Church. Islam, communism and today’s globalist ideology are all inversions of the Biblical Church. The globalists seek to ape this kingdom of grace by setting up a secular kingdom founded on earthly power and compulsion.

 

3. What Is Race?

It is impossible to express any support for nationalism without being called a “racist.” This accusation of racism is the default globalist attack, and therefore we must carefully analyze this insult. But before coming to an understanding of what “racism” is, we first must have an understanding of what race is. Given how frequently race is discussed in politics today, it is surprising that most Americans have such a fuzzy understanding of what it is.

Simply put, race is shared ancestry. There certainly are biological characteristics, such as skin color, that are heritable and can indicate membership in a certain racial group, but these characteristics do not define the racial group. A man from Latin America can have the same skin tone as a man from India, but this does not mean that these two men belong to the same race. Similarly an albino born to black parents does not belong to the white race because of his skin color. Your race is defined by who your ancestors were, and your race cannot be altered. It is common to hear progressives say that race is “just a social construct,” but this is obviously untrue. Whether or not someone is black is determined by whether or not his ancestors came from Africa, period.

Shared ancestry is also the Biblical definition of race and nationality. While the Bible does not talk about the larger racial groups like the white race and the black race, it does talk a lot about nations, which are groups of people who share common ancestry. Therefore the words “race” and “nation” are largely equivalent. They both refer to a group that shares common ancestry. The only difference between the two terms in modern English is that “nation” is used to describe smaller political and cultural units while “race” generally refers to a much larger group comprised of several smaller nations.

Throughout the Scriptures we see nations designated by the common ancestor who founded the group. Thus God’s covenant nation is called Israel or Jacob, because the patriarch Jacob was the latest shared ancestor of everyone in the nation. We can see the same definition of nationhood in the Genesis account of the sons of Noah repopulating the earth after the flood:
“Now these are the generations of the sons of Noah, Shem, Ham, and Japheth: and unto them were sons born after the flood. The sons of Japheth; Gomer, and Magog, and Madai, and Javan, and Tubal, and Meshech, and Tiras. And the sons of Gomer; Ashkenaz, and Riphath, and Togarmah. And the sons of Javan; Elishah, and Tarshish, Kittim, and Dodanim. By these were the isles of the Gentiles divided in their lands; every one after his tongue, after their families, in their nations.”(Genesis 10:1-5)
This passage says that the territories of the earth were divided by language, family and nation, thus showing that each of these new nations was in part defined by a shared ancestral patriarch. Another example comes from Genesis 19, where we learn the origin of the Moabites and Ammonites,
“Thus were both the daughters of Lot with child by their father. And the first born bare a son, and called his name Moab: the same is the father of the Moabites unto this day. And the younger, she also bare a son, and called his name Benammi: the same is the father of the children of Ammon unto this day.”(Genesis 19:36-38)
Whenever the Bible talks about nations, shared ancestry is either explicitly mentioned or assumed. The Biblical definition of a nation includes shared ancestry. This is true both of the Old Testament and the New Testament. Nowhere in the New Testament is the term “nation” redefined to exclude shared ancestry, so we as Christians have no right to exclude shared ancestry from our definition of the terms “race” or “nation” either.

4. What Is Ethno-Nationalism?

In the first section we defined what the term “nationalism” means in general. We can further divide nationalism into “civic nationalism” and “ethno-nationalism.” Civic nationalism defines membership in a nation by language, geography, culture and political beliefs. For example, an American civic nationalist would define an American as someone who speaks English, who either was born in America or immigrated to America, and who respects the Constitution. Ethno-nationalism defines membership in a nation by all of the above criteria as well as by race or ancestry. For example, an American ethno-nationalist would say that only someone with white European ancestors can be an actual American, while someone with ancestors from Africa or Asia cannot.

The idea of ethno-nationalism is quite objectionable to many Christians today, but that is only because the Church has strayed so far from the Biblical understanding of nationhood. As we saw in the previous section, the Bible always assumes that ancestry is one of the defining features of a nation. The Israelites are literally understood as the children (descendants) of Jacob.

Someone might object that although ancient Israel was largely defined by ancestry, it was also possible for non-Israelites to join the commonwealth of God. This is true to an extent, but there are two important qualifications. First, racial Israelites (that is, those who were born to Israelite parents) had more of a right to membership in the nation. There was a clear, God-ordained “Israelite privilege” at work in the old covenant nation. Non-Israelites who wished to participate in the nation had extra hurdles to overcome that racial Israelites did not. Second, we see that God’s law clearly discriminated between different types of immigrants on racial or
national grounds.
“An Ammonite or Moabite shall not enter into the congregation of the Lord; even to their tenth generation shall they not enter into the congregation of the Lord for ever: Because they met you not with bread and with water in the way, when ye came forth out of Egypt; and because they hired against thee Balaam the son of Beor of Pethor of Mesopotamia, to curse thee. Nevertheless the Lord thy God would not hearken unto Balaam; but the Lord thy God turned the curse into a blessing unto thee, because the Lord thy God loved thee. Thou shalt not seek their peace nor their prosperity all thy days for ever. Thou shalt not abhor an Edomite; for he is thy brother: thou shalt not abhor an Egyptian; because thou wast a stranger in his land. The children that are begotten of them shall enter into the congregation of the Lord in their third generation.”
(Deuteronomy 23:3-8)
Even after ten generations an Ammonite remains an Ammonite, that is a son of Benammi.

Someone might also object that ancient Israel was unique because God directly wrote the civil legislation of that nation, and that we cannot apply that legislation to our situation today. It certainly is true that God uniquely revealed His will to the Israelites, but it does not follow that we therefore cannot use ancient Israel as an example. After all, ancient Israel had special, direct commandments from God about which nations they should go to war with. We do not have such commandments from God today, but that does not mean that we cannot go to war. We use general Biblical principles as well as our own judgment to decide which nations to declare war against. Similarly, we can use general Biblical principles as well as our own judgment to decide which nations to discriminate against in our immigration law. Ancient Israel was not concerned with the same racial categories of black, brown and white that we deal with today, but the Old Testament law clearly establishes the principle that it is just and advantageous to discriminate against certain foreign nations in immigration policy. The only nation in history that had God as the framer of its constitution had discriminatory immigration laws!

We also point out that American immigration and citizenship laws were ethno-nationalist up until the cultural revolutions of the 1960s. The first American immigration law was the Naturalization Act of 1790, which was signed into law by George Washington. This law said that only a “free white person” could be eligible for citizenship. Even Thomas Jefferson, often cited by liberals as a great champion of racial equality, said the following about the black slaves in America:
Among the Romans emancipation required but one effort. The slave, when made free, might mix with, without staining the blood of his master. But with us a second is necessary, unknown to history. When freed, he is to be removed beyond the reach of mixture.
While Jefferson certainly advocated the eventual abolition of slavery, he understood that giving free blacks legal equality and full American citizenship would bring about disaster. American immigration law continued this trend of favoring white European immigrants well into the 20th century. The Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882 specifically excluded one racial group from being allowed to immigrate to the United States. The Immigration Act of 1924 was specifically designed to preserve the racial makeup of the country and guarantee that whites would remain a solid majority.

American immigration policy was completely redefined during the 1960s, the same era that saw the subversion and denigration of everything that made America great. The ’60s radicals attacked Christianity, sexual morality, the patriarchal family, capitalism, patriotism and ethno-nationalism. These radicals saw all these things as part of one evil system. Why do so many contemporary Christians agree with the ’60s radicals about ethno-nationalism while disagreeing with them on everything else?

Today anyone who defends the ancient Israelite understanding of nationhood, immigration and ancestry is decried as an evil “racist.” The same is true for anyone who wishes to return American immigration and citizenship laws to what they were prior to the 1960s.

 

5. Is Nationalism “Racist”?

The charge of “racism” will inevitably be brought against anyone who even hints at supporting nationalism. In dealing with this charge, the first thing Christians must realize is that the term “racism” does not occur in the Bible but rather was developed by secular leftists as a way to demonize their opponents. Christians are aiding their enemies when they use accusations of racism against each other. No Greek or Hebrew word corresponding to “racism” exists in the Bible, and none of the contemporary definitions of “racism” used to condemn nationalism corresponds to any Biblically defined sin. When pro-globalist pastors and theologians condemn nationalism by talking about “the sin of racism” they are mixing secular humanism into their Christianity. Clearly ancient Israel was an ethno-nationalist state, and there is no way that the Old Testament commonwealth was sinful.

The second important point is that the concept of “racism” used by the globalists does not have a stable definition. “Racism” is constantly being redefined by the globalists in order to push their agenda. According to the globalists, it is “racist” even to suggest that race is real. We have defined race as shared ancestry, and it is absurd to deny that shared ancestry is real. It is also supposedly “racist” to believe that race or ethnicity should be used to help define citizenship, even though this is the Biblical model for a nation, as well as the policy in America up until the 1960s. Today globalists accuse conservatives of “racism” for thinking that illegal immigrants should be deported, even though these conservatives desire our immigration laws to be enforced equally regardless of the race of the perpetrator. Even criticism of Islam is now classified as “racism,” although Islam is clearly a religion, not a race. To the globalists, any obstacle opposing their objective of eroding all religious, national, and cultural distinctions is automatically defined as “racism.” The fear of being labeled a “racist” is so great that it allows the globalists to silence all opposition and to avoid having to debate the actual merits of their system. This is why the term “racism” is so important to them.

Christians must overcome their fear of the term “racism” if they wish to defeat globalism. We cannot allow a word defined by our enemies to prevent us from defending nationalism, the political system endorsed by the Bible and our founding fathers. If someone is acting in a hateful, prejudiced or unjust way, it is our duty to condemn them using Biblically defined sins, not sins defined by anti-Christian leftists.

 

6. Are There Racial Differences?

There are many good reasons for reviving ethno-nationalism in America today. As we have seen, ethno-nationalism is the Biblical model for political organization, and it was the norm in America up until the 1960s. Ethno-nationalism also does a better job of building trust, community and solidarity than multiculturalism does. American society is becoming increasingly fractured, and this is largely due to the out of control non-white immigration we are experiencing. Entire neighborhoods have become “no go zones” for whites, and non-whites support the destructive socialist policies of the Democratic party by huge margins. Another reason why reviving ethno-nationalism is so important is because of the undeniable differences that exist amongst the races. It is obvious from history and from observing contemporary society that racial differences are real. Different races consistently perform differently at a variety of physical and intellectual tasks when competing on a level playing field.

For example, blacks always perform more poorly than whites, Asians and Hispanics on standardized tests. There is no debate about this fact, even progressives recognize that it is true. The only question is why this disparity exists. Progressives will immediately say that “racism” is to blame for black failure. But this does not make any sense because black intellectual achievement has not noticeably improved over the last 50 years since the Civil Rights era. Back in the 1960s, progressives argued that black failure was due to discriminatory laws and practices. During this time it was made illegal to discriminate against blacks, and all races were
on an equal playing field. But blacks still lagged far behind whites, so progressives instituted “affirmative action,” which is a fancy term for anti-white discrimination. Even with affirmative action, black performance still did not improve. So progressives invented concepts like “structural racism,” claiming that whenever blacks fail it is due to some secret, subconscious racism that exists somewhere in the system, even if they cannot identify where the racism is. Simply put, they assume their conclusion rather than proving it. We have now had 50 years of government enforced equality and affirmative action, with billions of dollars spent on trying to improve black performance, with no success at all.

Many so-called “colorblind” conservatives will rightly reject ideas like structural racism, but their explanations for black failure are equally untenable. These colorblind conservatives will say that black failure is due to the welfare mentality that has been instilled in blacks by Democrats and/or to an inferior black culture.

In order for the welfare argument to make sense, conservatives must first unknowingly assume that blacks really are inferior. Just like the progressives, the colorblind conservatives assume that blacks are totally at the mercy of whites. Progressives assume that if whites decide to be “racist,” then they can perpetually keep blacks in subjection, while colorblind conservatives assume that if whites decide to provide a welfare state, then blacks will perpetually be enslaved by it. In both theories it is assumed that blacks cannot improve their own lot without white assistance. How could this not be an argument in favor of black inferiority? Furthermore, welfare benefits have been equally available to all racial groups in America, and yet blacks have higher rates of violent crime and lower test scores than any other race. Blacks living in Africa also exhibit the exact same behavior, even though African nations do not offer lavish welfare benefits.

The colorblind conservative theory that a poor culture is to blame for black failure does not stand up to scrutiny either, because black failure is the same around the world in whatever culture blacks find themselves. Black nations in Africa lag behind the rest of the world. These nations have high crime, high poverty and poor academic achievement. Black immigrant communities in Europe have high crime, high poverty and poor academic achievement. And of course blacks in America, who have been assimilated to Anglo-American culture for centuries, have high crime, high poverty and poor academic achievement. How can culture be blamed
when blacks display the exact same deficiencies around the world no matter what language they speak or what culture they are living in? Let us contrast the universal failure of blacks with the universal high achievement of the Japanese. The Japanese living in Japan and in America are both known for high academic achievement and economic performance. Wherever the Japanese immigrate around the world they rise towards the top of society, while black immigrants always gravitate towards the bottom. In fact, one of the best predictors of how well different racial groups will perform is the level of civilization that has been reached in their home countries. People from countries where their ancestors were still hunter-gatherers or had not yet invented the wheel when whites made contact with them tend to do poorly, even after centuries of assimilation. The Japanese and other Asian races are quite successful in America despite the fact that up through the 20th century we had laws discriminating against Asians. When racial discrimination became illegal, Asians rose to the top of society while blacks stayed at the bottom.

A blind belief in racial equality has become so ingrained in our society that it is very rarely questioned, and when it is questioned, the globalists are quick to level the totally irrational charge of “racism.” The globalists instantly resort to name calling for the simple fact that there is zero evidence of racial equality. Throughout history and in contemporary society, different races have performed unequally. There is absolutely no reason to assume that all races could become completely equal in achievement, and indeed the burden of proof is on those who believe that total equality is possible. At best, racial egalitarianism is nothing more than an unverified theory until, for instance, a majority black country reaches first world standards, or black American neighborhoods become indistinguishable from white neighborhoods. Total racial equality has never been observed. There is no evidence from history or contemporary society to suggest that all races can become completely equal in achievement. Believing in total racial equality is an article of faith in the globalist religion of human unity.

 

7. Haven’t Scientists Proved That The Races Are Equal?

Globalists will frequently defend their belief in racial equality by making the vague claim that scientists have proved that all races are equal, and therefore differences in achievement must be due exclusively to social or cultural factors.

When globalists say that “scientists” have proved something, what they really mean is that the scientific establishment at secular universities endorses a particular viewpoint. This should immediately make Bible-believing Christians highly skeptical of their claims. Keep in mind that the scientific establishment has also “proved” that the universe is billions of years old, that life just spontaneously arose out of nothing, that man-made global warming will destroy us all, and that homosexuality and other perversions are completely natural. There is no reason for Christians to trust the scientific establishment, especially when it comes to issues that are closely related to politics. The scientific establishment promotes the climate change theory because this allows the globalists to push for more and more government regulations and international treaties. Similarly, the scientific establishment promotes the theory of racial equality because this allows the globalists to push for more and more Third World immigration into white countries.

We next point out that total racial equality is completely inconsistent with the theory of evolution, a theory that the scientific establishment supposedly holds to. Of course we condemn evolutionary theory as being contrary to the Bible, but we still raise the issue because it demonstrates how dishonest and inconsistent the scientific establishment is. The theory of evolution posits that natural selection has led to the development of a wide variety of different species from a common ancestor, and that differences amongst subspecies have arisen as adaptations to different environments. It is clear that racial equality is impossible under this
model because it would require us to believe that the human brain is the only organ in any organism that has miraculously evolved to be exactly the same in every way in every subspecies around the world. Even on their own premises of Darwinian evolution racial equality is an impossibility.

Finally we must keep in mind that the current scientific establishment does not allow free inquiry into the question of racial differences. Any scientist who questions the dogmas of globalism will quickly be silenced. To demonstrate this complete lack of academic freedom, let us examine the case of James Watson. Watson is a Nobel prize winning geneticist and a co-discoverer of the structure of DNA. It has hard to imagine a more prominent authority on the subject of genetics. In a 2007 interview Watson said that Africa lags behind the rest of the world because blacks are simply less intelligent than other races. The reaction against Watson was swift and severe. He was forced to resign from his position as chancellor at his research institute and to issue an apology. In 2014 Watson was even forced to auction off his Nobel prize medal in order to raise funds. The scientific establishment was completely unmoved by Watson’s comments about race and intelligence. Even Watson, a man who won a Nobel prize for discovering the structure of DNA, is not allowed to have an opinion on race and intelligence. This should tell us all we need to know about the scientific establishment and the claim that scientists have proved racial equality.

 

8. Aren’t We All Made In God’s Image?

We now consider some of the most common anti-nationalist arguments that are used by Christians with globalist sympathies. As we carefully go through these arguments and test them against the Scriptures, we will find that they all employ faulty reasoning and/or a false definition of nationalism.

One of the first arguments that a Christian nationalist is likely to hear is that, “nationalism is wrong because we are all made in God’s image.” It certainly is true that men of all races are made in God’s image, but it is impossible to use this fact as an argument against nationalism.

Men were all made in God’s image during Old Testament times when God separated the Israelites as a special people to live in an ethno-nationalist state. The Canaanites whom God consigned to destruction were all made in God’s image as well. The soldiers killed in any war throughout history were made in God’s image, as is every burglar, rapist and murderer who has been put in prison. And yet the vast majority of Christians who condemn nationalism on the grounds that “we are all made in God’s image” do not argue that we must completely abandon war or that we cannot put criminals in jail. Isn’t bombing someone’s home and children far worse than telling him he cannot live in our country?

When we exclude a particular individual from joining a nation, we are doing so because we judge that it will promote the common good of the community not to have him here. Christians make similar exclusionary decisions all the time. If you are a manager or business owner, then it is your duty to pass over less worthy job applicants, even though all job applicants are made in God’s image. If your denomination or congregation has embraced liberalism, then it is your duty to separate and no longer have Christian fellowship with those who have denied the faith, even though these apostates are all made in God’s image. Why is it that when it comes to deciding who gets to immigrate to our country, suddenly the fact that “we are all made in God’s image” becomes relevant?

We already have shown that there is no empirical evidence from history or from contemporary society to even remotely suggest that the races are completely equal. We can further state that there is not a single passage from the Bible that vaguely suggests that all of the different sons of Adam are completely equal in physical or mental ability. The only way in which all the sons of Adam are equal is that we are all affected by original sin and therefore we are equally incapable of pleasing God through our own strength. Just as the concept of “racism” is not found in the Bible, neither is the concept of “racial equality.”

In Genesis 10, we have the account of the sons and grandsons of Noah spreading throughout the earth. God makes it clear that all of mankind developed into separate, distinct ethnic groups. We can see that the history of humanity as recorded in the Bible is marked by separation, segregation and difference. The Bible describes the God-ordained division of humanity into various races and tribes. These races are marked by differences in appearance, historical significance and cultural achievement. It is true that the Bible does not explicitly say “racial differences are biological,” but we would not expect it to. When it comes to biology and the other natural sciences, God has left it to the human intellect to learn gradually about the intricacies of the world we live in. But because national and ethnic identity are given such a prominent place in the Bible, we should not be surprised to find that these differences also have a biological component. There is nothing in the Scriptures that even remotely suggests that all of the nations of mankind are endowed with the same genetic gifts, just as the Bible nowhere says that that all of the nations of mankind are equal in any other area.

 

9. Aren’t We All One In Christ?

When trying to discuss racial differences with Christians, one is frequently confronted with the argument that “racial differences do not exist because God commands us to love everyone,” or that “racial differences do not exist because we are all one in Christ.” These arguments rely on incredibly flawed logic.

Leaving aside for the moment the issue of race, let us consider a white man with two sons. Imagine that one of his sons has been blessed with genius level intelligence, and his other son is of average intelligence. God requires that this father love and care for both of his sons, but this does not change the fact that God created the two sons to be different in intelligence. Or again, imagine a white woman who is married to a white man and has an infant son. The woman’s husband and the woman’s son cannot be said to be equal in any respect. The husband far excels the son physically and intellectually. But the woman loves both her son and
her husband. Let us further imagine that the woman’s son is born with a mental defect and will never become intellectually mature. Throughout her entire life, this woman will love her son with all her heart, but this warm and beautiful love has absolutely no bearing on his mental abilities. Furthermore, it is not at all unchristian for us to look at this mentally disabled child and declare that he is incapable of performing certain tasks, and his inability to perform these tasks does not diminish the love that we feel for him.

What should be clear by now is this: as Christians, our ability and duty to love has nothing to do with the gifts or defects of certain individuals. Indeed, if all people were equal in every way, it would be easy to love them all equally. It is precisely because people are unequal that it is so difficult to love them all, and when God commands that we love everyone, including our enemies, he is calling us to a most difficult task.

Returning now to the question of race, if God did not create all white men to be equal, and did not even create two brothers born to the same parents to be equal, how incredible is it to believe that He created all races to be equal? The Christian’s duty to love all men simply cannot imply their physical or intellectual equality. Anti-nationalist Christians frequently cite certain passages from the Apostle Paul in support of their position. The two most popular passages are:
“There can be neither Jew nor Greek, there can be neither bond nor free, there can be no male and female; for ye all are one man in Christ Jesus.” (Galatians 3:28)
“…there cannot be Greek and Jew, circumcision and uncircumcision, barbarian, Scythian, bondman, freeman; but Christ is all, and in all.” (Colossians 3:11)
The anti-nationalists claim that given what Paul says, it is unchristian to believe that there are racial differences. But let us consider: if white and black Christians are one in Christ, then surely all white Christians are also one in Christ. But just because all white Christians are one in Christ, it does not follow that all white men are equal in every way. Indeed, no one ever uses this passage to suggest that all men within a particular race are equal, only that all races are equal. It is clear that there are certain conditions such as autism and dyslexia that affect cognitive ability, and therefore a physical, genetic component to intelligence must exist. Everyone acknowledges that there are wide differences in intelligence within each particular race. Everyone acknowledges that there are physical differences amongst the different races. But devotion to the globalist idol of racial equality prevents people from making the obvious logical conclusion that differences in intelligence can exist amongst the races just as much as they do within each particular race.

Furthermore, in the passage from Galatians, Paul says that there is “no male and female,” but surely this does not mean that men and women are interchangeable or biologically identical. If Galatians 3:28 means that all races are exactly the same and should not be distinguished in any way, then the passage must also imply that all Church offices should be open to women and that women should be able to marry each other.

By this point we should recognize a clear trend: every Scriptural argument employed by anti-nationalists is applied in an inconsistent way. They are twisting the obvious meaning of Scripture in an effort to support the modern leftist dogmas of egalitarianism.

 

10. Isn’t Nationalism Hateful And Prideful?

Another charge frequently leveled against Christian nationalists is that our position is hateful and prideful. Once again, these anti-nationalist arguments are inconsistent and illogical. No Christian would consider it hateful or prideful to recognize the objective fact that some individuals are more intelligent than others, that some people are more physically gifted than others, or that some people are wealthier than others. No Christian would even consider it sinful to recognize that some countries are more powerful and more successful than others. So all Christians agree that simply recognizing observable differences in ability is perfectly alright
in all other cases, but as soon as race is brought up as a factor in human differences suddenly it is hate and pride! There is no Scriptural basis for this completely inconsistent method of reasoning. The Bible commands us to be humble and loving in all areas of life, and the Bible also leaves us free to recognize all objective differences in human ability without committing sin. It is no more sinful for a teacher to rank the students in his class by academic achievement than it is for us to rank the different races and nations by ability.

Many “colorblind” conservatives acknowledge that we should fight to retain our national sovereignty, and that there should be strict requirements for citizenship, but they deny that ancestry should be a consideration. These conservatives, many of them Christians, suddenly say that discriminating against foreigners because of their race is “hate” when these same conservatives advocate discriminating against foreigners because of their language and culture. Conservatives will say that in order to become citizens, foreigners should learn English, adopt American culture, and pledge allegiance to the Constitution, but these requirements are all
forms of discrimination. Even if some people refuse to learn English or adopt American culture, God still requires us to love them, although He does not require us to grant them citizenship. Where does the Bible say that it is perfectly okay to treat someone differently because of his language or culture, but that it is the horrible sin of “hatred” to treat someone differently because of his ancestry? We can see that the colorblind conservatives and the civic nationalists occupy an inconsistent, contradictory position half way between globalism and genuine ethno-nationalism. The colorblind conservatives use the exact same arguments against the reality of race that the globalists use against the continued existence of separate, independent nation-states. There is no good logical reason for why it is “hate” to discriminate by ancestry but not hate to discriminate by national origin.

We also must point out the total absurdity of labeling certain political opinions as “hate.” Hate is an emotion felt by some people on all sides of every issue. There are no such things as inherently “hateful” political views. Nor is hate even necessarily a bad thing. After all, Christians are required to hate sin and evil doctrines.

 

11. Aren’t We Supposed To Treat Others The Same Way We Would Like To Be Treated?

Having established that there is nothing unchristian about recognizing racial differences, we now come to the question of how to apply this knowledge of racial reality. Once again, let us consider a hypothetical situation where race is not a factor. Imagine an
all white city. In this city there is a public bus service, and the city government has decided that mentally disabled individuals should not be allowed to become bus drivers. But in this city, there is a group of misled Christians who have declared that because God requires us to love the mentally disabled, therefore the mentally disabled should not be discriminated against. Convinced by this argument, the city government starts employing the mentally disabled as bus drivers. The buses no longer run on time, and the number of traffic accidents increases, resulting in many deaths and injuries.

The reader might object that this scenario is ridiculous, but it is exactly the same as the situation we currently face. When black and brown people move into a community, crime goes up and the quality of public services goes down. Having a black neighborhood in your city means that more people will be raped and murdered, and that many public services will become unusable. These are empirical facts. Debating about why black and brown people act this way is beside the point. It would be like debating the causes of mental disability, as if the causes of this disability could have some bearing on whether or not to entrust the mentally disabled with important responsibilities. Even if there potentially could be a cure for mental disability, until that cure is found, it would be criminally negligent to put the mentally disabled in positions where they could harm innocent people.

When you lend your support to the demands for more diversity and more integration, you must realize that the policies you are promoting will result in death and misery for innocent people. This is far from Christian love. And what is is even worse, this lack of compassion for our fellow man is almost always accompanied by gross hypocrisy, since many Christians who promote diversity are content to impose diversity on others while they themselves live safely in mostly white communities.

To illustrate this point, imagine that your sixteen-year-old daughter has to walk home by herself at night. She has two options, to walk through a neighborhood that is safe, or to walk through a neighborhood that is heavily “diverse.” Which path home would you suggest to her? If you would tell her to take the safe route, consider that when you demand more “diversity,” you are ensuring that some poor white family will be trapped in a situation where there is no safe route home for their daughter. Their entire city has become “diverse,” and every street has become dangerous. When you promote “diversity,” you are doing to a white family what you would never do to your own. You are doing unto others what you would never do unto yourself.

We also must understand that there are limitations on the principle that we are to treat others as we ourselves wish to be treated. For example, no one would want to be in jail, but that does not mean we let every criminal go free; and no one would want his city to be bombed, but that does not mean we must never go to war. Clearly it is our duty to preserve justice and to promote the common good of our nation and of all mankind. Racial discrimination and segregation are important tools for doing so.

All social policy that starts from the false premise of racial equality only brings more pain and suffering to all parties involved. If we really want to help blacks and other non-whites we must honestly confront the root of their problems. The “help” that has been given them over the last 50 years has done much more harm than good. The most loving thing we can do when dealing with blacks is to recognize their racial limitations and to shape policy based on this reality. It is not loving to put a mentally handicapped child in a classroom full of advanced students and expect him to perform like his peers. The decision to “segregate” mentally handicapped children into separate classes where their needs can be met is not motivated by “hate.” The truth of racial differences must be the starting point for all racial policy and for all attempts at racial reconciliation. If we build on the sandy foundation of the Utopian daydream of total racial equality, then we will only reap more sorrow.

 

12. Aren’t We Supposed To Judge People As Individuals?

Some people will object to ethno-nationalism by saying that even if there are racial differences we should still treat everyone as an individual. This position will sometimes be supported by claiming that the Bible requires us to judge individuals on their own personal merits, not on their membership in certain groups.

In response to this claim, we first of all affirm the Biblical truth that God will judge people as individuals. We also affirm that membership in the visible church is to be determined by personal confession of faith and personal behavior, and that membership in the Church is to be offered to all regardless of race or nationality. However, there is nothing in the Bible to suggest that we cannot make foreign and domestic policy decisions that affect entire groups of people. We have already cited the Old Testament immigration law in which foreigners are treated differently based on their nationality. The only divinely inspired immigration law that we have clearly establishes the principle that potential immigrants should be judged at least in part by their ethnicity.

War can only be declared against a group, not individuals, and war always brings about the death of non-combatants, many of whom possibly disagreed with their own political leaders who brought the war about in the first place. Also, current American immigration law already treats citizens of different countries unequally when it comes to issuing travel visas. Once again, we see an anti-nationalist argument that turns out to be both unbiblical and inconsistent in its application. No conservative Christians argue that we cannot wage war because we must judge people as individuals, but suddenly it becomes wrong to make judgments about groups of people when race is brought up.

 

13. Shouldn’t We Welcome Refugees?

The globalist media refers to the ongoing invasion of the West by Muslims as part of a “refugee crisis.” We are told that the only proper response to this crisis is to allow all migrants to settle in the West and offer them full citizenship rights. Many churches have blindly accepted this narrative and are complicit in the deliberate destruction of the lands once known collectively as Christendom.

The first point to grasp is that there is no “refugee crisis.” Citing the current Syrian civil war as the cause of the “refugee crisis” is only a pretext. The globalist elites who wish to transform the demographics of Europe and America have actively enticed Muslims and other migrants by promising them easy living in white countries. This is what has caused the refugee flood, not any actual catastrophe. The migrants come from all over Africa and the Middle East, not just Syria, and even the mainstream media frequently mentions that these “refugees” are fleeing from “war and poverty” in their home countries. There have always been countries in
Africa and the Middle East that are poor compared to the West, and there have been wars and other conflicts in these regions for decades. If being in a country that is poorer or more violent than America grants the automatic right of immigration, then the entire Third World would possess this right. When carried to its logical conclusion, this attitude towards immigration can only result in the destruction of all national borders and the very concept of national sovereignty. There is nothing new in the number of non-whites who want to immigrate to the West. The “crisis” is purely the result of the fictional narrative promoted by the lying media and
treasonous Western governments.

But even if there really were a refugee crisis, it does not follow that every legitimate refugee should be granted citizenship status and given a full stake in his host country. To support their pro-invasion position, Christians frequently site Bible verses like Leviticus 19:34, “But the stranger that dwelleth with you shall be unto you as one born among you, and thou shalt love him as thyself; for ye were strangers in the land of Egypt.” But this verse and others like it simply cannot mean what the pro-invasion interpreters want it to mean. If the ancient Israelites had understood Leviticus 19:34 in the way that some modern Christians do, then the ancient nation of Israel would have disappeared within a couple generations. The ancient Israelites would have invited every neighboring worshiper of Molech or Beelzebub to live in their country, vote in their assemblies, and be granted landed property, all without making any demands that the newcomers adopt the native religion or culture of Israel. This is not what God commanded His people to do. The Israelites were to choose their political rulers from their own kinsmen, and they were to carefully preserve the tribal allotment of land ownership. The Old Testament is quite clear that Israel was to remain a religiously, culturally and ethnically distinct nation. It is impossible that God’s law could include any commandments that would lead to the destruction of the nation of Israel, or of the nation-state in general. Leviticus 19:34 simply means that strangers must be treated equally before the law, as we can see by reading the verses that immediately follow, “Ye shall do no unrighteousness in judgment, in meteyard, in weight, or in measure. Just balances, just weights, a just ephah, and a just hin, shall ye have”(Leviticus 19:35-36). God told His people that it was unlawful to abuse or defraud non-citizens, but He did not tell them that the distinction between citizen and non-citizen must be completely abolished. Contemporary pro-invasion Christians have adopted the globalist position that the very concepts of national sovereignty and distinct citizenship are sinful. This is a perversion of Biblical teaching and it will bring about the destruction of our independent nations.

If there really were innocent people fleeing from war who needed shelter in our lands, then shelter could be provided on a temporary basis and without allowing potentially dangerous refugees to move freely throughout our society. We could make it clear that refugees that are racially or ideologically incompatible with our nation will not be allowed to become citizens. We could invite them into our own countries and provide safe, segregated accommodations until the situation in their homelands improved. If the refugees found such accommodations insulting and decided to return home rather than put up with such “racism,” then clearly their lives were not in great danger in the first place.

When the globalists talks about the “refugee crisis,” their primary goal is not saving the lives of those threatened by war. Their goal is to facilitate the invasion of the West by a hostile force.

 

14. Has The Christian Right Failed?

In the 1960s, the Left and the globalists won a stunning victory over traditional America. During this decade the definition of morality was turned completely upside down, as fornication, abortion, homosexuality, drug use and Marxist socialism became mainstream. In reaction to these abominations, conservative Christians began to organize politically, forming what came to be known as the “Christian Right” or the “moral majority.”

In many ways the Christian Right has been quite successful. The platform of the Republican party has been largely shaped by the Christian Right, and the Republican party has made great advances in consolidating the white vote.

But despite this seeming success, the Christian Right continues to lose every battle in the culture war. Abortion and gay “marriage” are guaranteed as “constitutional rights,” while Christians are increasingly persecuted. What can account for this failure? The answer is quite simple: demographics. Whites are the only significant racial group in America that votes Republican. The black and brown races vote Democrat. As whites become a smaller and smaller percentage of the American population, there will be no hope for pursuing a godly political agenda. Democrats will frequently gloat about this fact, mocking the GOP for being “old and white” and celebrating the fact that Republican voters are being replaced by non-white immigrants.

If only white votes had been counted over the last few decades, abortion would already be illegal, the traditional definition of marriage would still be intact, and big government socialist programs would not stand a chance in Congress. The Christian Right has been phenomenally successful at pushing the Republican party in the right direction on social issues, and at consolidating white support for the GOP at the ballot box. The only major political failure of the Christian Right has been its refusal to deal honestly with the race issue.

The race issue is deeply tied to theology. Ethno-nationalism is the Biblical model for forming a state, and yet the Christian Right refuses to listen to the plain Scriptural teaching on this point. “Colorblind” Christian conservatives have decided that they know better than God when it comes to race and ethnicity. God is punishing this presumption by keeping political victory from the Christian Right.

Not only have colorblind conservatives rejected God’s model for the state, but in its place they have substituted the leftist belief in total racial equality. Destroying white identity was one of the main goals of the radical leftists of the 1960s. These leftists correctly saw that promoting racial equality was one of the most important weapons in the fight against traditional Christian civilization. They understood that increasing the number of non-whites in America would inevitably create a voting population incredibly hostile to the founding vision of this country.

The Christian Right has failed because on one key issue, the issue of race, it has clung to the Marxist fantasy that all humans can be made exactly the same. If you actually care about stopping homosexual “marriage,” abortion and the persecution of Christians, then you must support actual political solutions based on a Biblical understanding of nationalism and the wisdom of our ethno-nationalist founding fathers. What is more important to you, actually reversing the decline of our civilization, or not being called a “racist” by demonic leftists who hate God and His law?

And finally, as a note to any non-white Christians who agree with us on social issues, you should look in the mirror and understand what your co-ethnics are doing. Non-white Christians need to admit to themselves that black and brown voters are the ones keeping the abortion clinics open. They need to focus on changing the minds of their own people, not guilting white Christians into making apologies for what their ancestors may have done hundreds of years ago.

 

15. What Will Majority Non-White America Look Like?

If we could ask one thing of those conservative Christians who denounce nationalism, it would be this: seriously picture in your own mind what America will look like when whites no longer make up a majority of the population.

American society has been in serious decline for the last fifty years, but the decline will only accelerate as the racial composition of the country continues to change. Demographers predict that whites will no longer be a majority in America by 2050, if not earlier. Once that has happened, there will never be another conservative in the White House. Every Supreme Court Justice will be a radical leftist and globalist. The Constitutional rights to freedom of religion, freedom of speech and the right to bear arms will all disappear. Churches that refuse to accept the leftist social agenda will be persecuted by the state. Homeschooling will be banned, and the state will likely remove children from the homes of conservative Christian parents. The public schools will relentlessly push transgenderism and homosexuality. Border enforcement will completely cease, and Hispanic cartels will operate without resistance throughout the country. Growing Muslim communities will become autonomous zones governed by Sharia law, from which terror attacks can be launched with impunity. Our infrastructure and public amenities will crumble to Third World levels as the government wastes billions upon billions of dollars in its pursuit of total racial equality.

If the Democrats are able to secure a permanent majority in the federal government, then this will be our future. There is absolutely no reason to believe that non-white voting trends will change anytime soon. Even the Republicans who do the most to pander to illegal immigrants and other minority groups get slaughtered by Democrats at the polls because the Democrats always offer more handouts. The colorblind conservatives who tell us year after year that we will win the Hispanic vote next time are deluding themselves. Nationalism is the only political option that can realistically restore Christian America, and when conservative Christians denounce nationalism, they are helping to build the socialist nightmare.

 

16. Be Not High-minded, But Fear

As Christians, we do not view the world as random or accidental. God’s Providence governs His creation and brings about His ends. The Earth is full of God’s glory, and there is no sphere of life where we are not totally dependent on our Lord. Jesus tells us that, “without me ye can do nothing”(John 15:5) and that, “when ye shall have done all those things which are commanded you, say, We are unprofitable servants”(Luke 17:10). The Bible leaves no room for pride in personal accomplishment. Even amongst the redeemed, God has distributed spiritual gifts unequally, “Having then gifts differing according to the grace that is given to us”(Romans 12:6). In the Church, we are all one in Christ, but even here we are not all equal in spiritual gifts. If those in the Church are not equal in spiritual gifts, then why would we ever assume that those outside of the Church are all equal in natural gifts? Just as Christians must accept the fact that God distributes spiritual gifts unequally, so we must accept the fact that God distributes natural gifts unequally. Accepting the truth of ethno-nationalism and racial differences is an important part of living humbly in accordance with God’s Word and His created order.

The globalist dogma of racial equality is a denial of God’s created order. Rather than teaching all of the races to humbly recognize their created limitations, the globalists teach the dangerous doctrine that the only explanation for racial disparities is “racist” oppression, and that once national sovereignty and racial identity are dissolved, then humanity will enjoy total equality. This racial egalitarian world view is borrowed directly from Marxism. Classical Marxism teaches that all inequality is due to the unjust distribution of wealth brought about by capitalism, and that once the communist revolution has destroyed private property, there will be a Utopia of total equality. The logic of racial egalitarianism is exactly the same. Both ideologies are based on the same old satanic belief that men can become like God and can perfect humanity through social engineering.

The Church is the body of believers called from every tribe and nation. Membership in the Church is not based on personal merit or righteousness but on the imputed righteousness of Christ, and that is why the Church is a truly transcendent and international body. At Pentecost, the Holy Spirit descended on the Church and granted to the saints the miraculous ability to speak in foreign languages. This miracle occurred in the Church for the purpose of spreading the Gospel, and it was not intended as a model for government. We must never think that the unity that the Church possesses by grace can or should be achieved in the realm of politics by force. Trying to imitate the Church’s transcendent unity by force has been at the root of every communist revolution, and it is at the root of the current globalist push to destroy nationalism.

Recognizing the objective fact that certain human groups have superior natural gifts does not automatically lead to hatred or contempt for other races. The great missionary work of the 19th century occurred when white racial consciousness was at its strongest. Even white slave owners in the South worked to spread the Gospel amongst their own slaves. Back in the 19th century, when Christianity was still the moral foundation of Western Civilization, nationalism and the preaching the Gospel went hand in hand. It is only after radical leftists came to dominate the culture in the 1960s that Christian leaders suddenly began to “discover” that the Bible actually teaches the globalist dogmas on nationalism and race. It is hard to imagine a more obvious case of the Church trying to mimic the ways of the sinful world.

The Bible tells us that when we consider our own status as redeemed members of the body of Christ we are to, “Be not highminded, but fear”(Romans 11:20), and that we are to work out our salvation, “with fear and trembling”(Philippians 2:12). These warnings also apply to our endeavors to understand God’s created order. We must accept the reality of created differences, rather than impose ideological constructs such as “equality” on creation. The creature is not to question or talk back to the Creator.

The great political issue of our day is the conflict between nationalism and globalism, and the most important factor in this conflict is which side the Church will take. It is your choice whether you side with the Bible and the Christian tradition in affirming godly
nationalism, or throw in your lot with the Christ-hating globalists who want to destroy everything we hold dear.