It is true that while observing different human species gathering pecans in both Georgia and Alabama, I noticed very obvious distinct and different traits?
In both States the lessor species would bend over each time to pick up one pecan at a time, regardless of the type of pecan.(Hardshell vs Papershell).
Where I noted that the supperior species had devised a tool that allowed them to not have to bend over, allowed them to pick up multiple pecans, and had actually focused on the trees that dropped only the paperhull variety.(This indicated an understanding that as hunter/gatherers, removing the meat of the pecan would be faster and less effort.)
After a number of years I stopped seeing the lesser species arrive at the trees to gather pecans, and assumed that through natural selection they had died out?……..I decided to approach the remaing group about the extinction of the lesser group?
They said, “Not only did the other group not die out, but had applied for a Federal Assistance Program, and were now having shelled pecans delivered to their homes for free!”
When I asked where the free pecans came from they said, “It’s part of the one’s that we are picking up!”
This subject deserves a lot more attention than this brief comment, but this will be a start.
Christianity in one sense is universalist. Traditional Christianity claims to be THE Truth, not a truth. It claims that Jesus died to redeem all mankind. (Without delving into Calvinism.) It is open to all regardless of race, ethnicity, country of origin etc. who accept it. It has some aspects of its moral code that are applicable to all whether they accept it or not. Meaning it doesn’t allow for moral relativism on some moral issues that it is clear on.
That said, for the same reason it is anathema to universalists precisely because it is exclusivist. Its Creeds are about one Man, in one time, in one place etc. The true universalists understand this. That is why universalists have always considered orthodox (small o) Christianity an impediment to their plans. And universalism (as in for example the Universalists who later joined with the Unitarians to form the Unitarian Universalists) Christianity has always been considered heretical from an orthodox standpoint.
Modern Christians who try to use Christianity to justify absolutist egalitarianism are reading into the Bible what they believe as moderns. The Bible is not an egalitarian document from a social standpoint. It presupposes the social order as it existed in that day and pretty much leaves it intact and in some cases endorses it. (For example gender roles.)
The Good Samaritan story, often pointed to by egalitarian Christians, illustrates an important moral point about helping the distressed regardless, but it is reading back into it modern ideas to argue that that somehow is an admonition to eliminate all use of ethnicity, shared culture, etc. as a basis of social organization. What these modern Christians don’t realize is how truly revolutionary and socially upsetting that would have been back then and even today.
Here is what I think is going on with the Darwinism leads to racism and creationism and/or Intelligent Design lead to egalitarianism business. Among favored elite opinion creationism is considered icky. It is a social negative. But so is racism. In fact, racism is the worst of all possible sins. So the creationists cling to the Darwinism leads to racism and creationism leads to purist egalitarianism paradigm as a way to shed some of the ick and transfer it to Darwinism and at the same time claim some of the glory of anti-racism. I think this is clearly what is going on. Otherwise they wouldn’t grandstand on it the way they do. This is true more so for young earth creationists than it is for the Intelligent Design crowd. Under young earth thinking all the modern races arose from the 8 people who got off the Ark and that not too long ago. Ironically, fundamentalists were some of the last to embrace integration some even arguing that God intended the races to be separate.
What these egalitarian Christians don’t understand is that they are giving the other side the rope with which to hang them. If equality is the highest good, then how do Christians defend the gender roles that are in the Bible? How do they defend denying homosexuals the right to marry? These things become principled exceptions to their otherwise embrace of liberalism. Principled because they have to do with the non-negotiable parts of the Christian moral code I discussed above. But if you embrace liberalism in all else then your principled exceptions must ultimately fall. Because they aren’t attacking the root liberal assumptions. This is already happening, and barring something drastic will continue. Twenty years ago the idea of gay marriage would have been comical and fringe. Not even serious. Now it has the support of a large minority. We went from shock over Ellen coming out on TV to gay characters as routine. Christians who play more PC than thou on race are feeding this beast, but they don’t get it.
You are correct in that “the creationists cling to the Darwinism leads to racism and creationism leads to purist egalitarianism paradigm.” During a recent ID / Darwinism brouhaha at a local school district, the #1 objection to evolution I heard by the ID crowd was not that it is scientifically invalid, nor that it is necessarily atheist, but that it is “racist.”
Red, equality certainly isn’t the highest good for a Christian. It is not his resemblance to me whereby my neighbor possesses dignity. It is his being made in God’s image. If it were otherwise than the love which I should have for a neighbor would not be love at all but conceit. I would merely be loving my image in him instead of God’s.
“During a recent ID / Darwinism brouhaha at a local school district, the #1 objection to evolution I heard by the ID crowd was not that it is scientifically invalid, nor that it is necessarily atheist, but that it is “racist.””
This is so short sighted it is unbelievable. Do these people not understand they are empowering the enemies of Christianity with this? Do they really think they are going to be able to put that egalitarian Genie back in the bottle before it gobbles them up?
You are your own enemy. Judaism was effectively criminal in the USSR for over 70 years. Stalin was in the midst of organizing the mass murder of Soviet Jews when he died. Look up the “Doctor’s Plot”.
Marxism was an anti-Jewish religion from day 1. Sadly some people are too dumb to actual look at facts.
Point of all of the above being, in order for (evolutionary) conservatism to be effective, first we have to get that pesky monkey-wrench out of the gears. Someday the truth will out anyway, just trying to give her a little push.
while I like the idea of preserving genetics as a tradition, akin to how one preserves cultural bromides as a tradition, Darwin’s rejection of Intelligent Design creates more problems than it solves.
Christianity today is misunderstood in its warped universalism. However, Creation stories provide us value and a soul.
The true Darwinist views genetic traditions as but random, unplanned mutations that proved superior or at least good enough to survive. There’s then no value assigned to a people’s distinct set of traits.
Radical eugenics would then appear to be the logical conclusion, which would value no people.
Similarly, the theory of evolution is inherently progressive, believing that organisms are constantly evolving into superior forms, and is thus by nature: anti-traditional. The true Creationist however would seek to preserve God’s order as it exists. Those unique traits granted to a people should be preserved, and the divisions among peoples should be similarly preserved (a diversity of nations is the true diversity).
Whether true Christian or pagan (and not universal), a Creation myth is vital for providing value to man, and to a people.
Darwinism is useful for explaining differences among men, and for annoying egalitarian liberals, but when it points to monkeys as man’s distant relative, and pond scum as the most ancient of ancestors, it creates more problems than it solves (from a Christian nationalist view).
And my mentioning paganism is because I think it better for men to be pagan than scientific atheists, if the Truth cannot be accepted.
Depends on what is meant by eugenics. If that means growing humans in a test tube I give it a thumbs down. If it means encouraging, by a technocratic system of incentives if need be, Whites to procreate within the confines of marriage for the amplification of desirable traits (e.g., intelligence), I’m all for it. At least, a serious person who cares for his race must concede, the bottoming out of the birth rate for those at the far right end of the bell curve is not good. Darwin had ten children.
“Radical eugenics” is often code for eugenics that treats man as if he has no soul.
I’m actually pro-eugenic considerations that seek to maintain the genetic heritage of a people (prevent genetic deterioration).
What’s essentially happening is that outside of a fierce, natural environment man’s genetic strength is eroding. Either man needs to return to the wild, or he needs to adapt his civilisation to take such matters into consideration.
Since certain complex features are incapable of evolving on their own, once a genetic trait is lost, it’s lost forever.
So, the true Creationist I think is open to eugenics provided such can be done in a moral and sensible fashion. Since mere humans would be in charge, eugenics might be impossible. Arrogance is the root of a great deal of evil…
I don’t see where Darwin’s theories necessarily clash with Christianity or vice versa. Unfortunately, you have some of the current village atheists who claim that Darwinism “proves” the non-existence of God and you have Biblical literalists who claim that everything in the first few chapters of Genesis have to be taken literally and intelligent design theorists who claim that God must have created every individual species ex nihilo.
Darwin’s theories (as modified by subsequent discoveries) seem to explain at least a lot of speciation, but a lot of “survival of the fittest” depended on ability to survive mass extinctions caused by such things as catastrophic meteor strikes. Such ability to survive was not very evident in advance of the event.
A believing Christian would insist that all things occur within the providence of God and that His design is indeed intelligent, so much so in fact that the evolution of species is part of it. Within the Catholic Church it is taught that each individual human soul is created by God and that the entire human race is descended from one pair of first parents. On the latter point modern genetics seems to confirm Church teaching.
As far as Darwinism being an argument against egalitarianism, I’m not sure how that works. Anyone who has not noticed for himself that human beings are unequal is unlikely to believe that they are simply if he is told that Darwin says so. Unless, of course, Darwinism is his religion, in which case he has other problems. But if Darwin is used to hold that human beings are of different species, that’s manifestly untrue. A species is a breeding community and all humans in general are capable of interbreeding. The racially obsessed would not have to spend such time and energy trying to discourage or prevent interbreeding of humans if humans were of different species and thus could not interbreed.
there wouldn’t be a need to discourage interbreeding were men free to act and think as they please.
American society is shaped and given value by media and academic elites, and by various laws, especially Civil Rights laws.
The world has never existed under a single empire, and yet that is what it is being shaped into. You support this while portraying it as a yearning of mankind for unity that is being assaulted by irrational racists.
All of the various racial groups are the result of millennia of separation and occasional amalgamation. It is beyond question in man’s nature to separate, just as it is in the nature of animal species, even those that can reproduce together, to separate.
What’s being designed and shaped is a world of slaves without heritage, identity, or value – slaves who can be easily shaped and manipulated to the will of their rulers.
That is the entire purpose of globalism. And Americans are being hamstrung by pretenses that Christ somehow wanted this globalism, though such ideas are no where to be found in the Bible.
The only result of this perversion of Christianity will be conservatives taking to Nietzschian BS and thus losing their way, and Christians being mislead into undermining that which they’re meant to defend.
Mexico filling the void as you dream of won’t be pretty. You know as well as I that the finally resettling will be extremely bloodly and violent. This globalist dream already has millions of bodies under it, 60 million in the USSR alone, and it’s seeking more…
I’m in disagreement with you on some important issues.
Israel was once a flourishing state (unless you’re referring to the Khazars as the “enemy”?), and “civilisation” as we often define it is often the result of empire. I’m more apt to value virtue and morality than civilisational achievement.
The Egyptians built great pyramids and the Romans built previously unmatched architecture; but these were all built on multicultural empires.
I’m a radical traditionalist who desires a crystalising of society into something that only progresses technologically in order to maintain defenses. Qing dynasty China is often given as an example of a crystalised society that wasn’t even applying all of the technology it had discovered. Though it was an empire and one that had grown weaker than Europe, the ideal almost brings a tear to my eye.
What we have today are scientists who dream of what could be without appreciation for what already is, and the same scientists who recognise no higher good than individual pleasure, as opposed to fighting for one’s people and for what’s right. And too, it requires less strength to give up the fight.
Weaver, I don’t think anyone is forcing interbreeding of races and/or nationalities. Aside from a handful of arranged marriages among certain of my acquaintances, I don’t know of any case of even great social pressure to marry a given person and with these arranged marriages, the partners were selected from within a close knit ethnic and religious group. The majority of people I know, myself included, are married within their own ethnic group of their own free will, and those who are not freely chose their partner from a different ethnic group. I don’t have a problem with that; you seem to.
As far as my supporting the world existing under a single empire, I have never advocated this and I am much opposed to it. I prefer a very side dispersion of political power down to the local level. I do, of course, belong to the Catholic Chuch and seek the voluntary conversion of all men to the Catholic Church.
Before any further discussion of this issue continues, I think it behooves us all to make a distinction between macro-evolution and micro-evolution for the sake of clarification. Suffice to say that, in my humble view, the former is inherently in conflict with biblical Christianity whereas the latter is not. Moreover, one can embrace micro-evolution as a means of explaining racial differences without embracing macro-evolution.
all men mean to do good, as their strength allows it, but you’ve supported mass immigration in the past and continue to embrace some sort of deracinated localism of the mind. My sentiments though are of the heart, which is a vitally important difference. The barriers to globalism are these attachments of the heart which nationalists wish to defend, and which you at best view neutrally.
I do think there should be social controls against intermarriage, as there used to be. However, currently we have strong social pressures in favor intermarriage.
One has only to take an English class at most any university, or to turn on TV programs targeted at teenagers and young adults to see this.
Stonewall, just to make clear what we are talking about, where do you draw the line between macro and micro-evolution? If by macro-evolution you mean speciation, which is what evolutionary theory was supposed to be about in the first place, then I don’t see how it is opposed to Biblical Christianity. It would only be opposed if evolutionists were to claim, as some do, that evolution eliminates the need for God. The fact that this claim is untrue does not make evolutionary theory in itself untrue. I think it contains truth, but it is constantly being refined.
Weaver, I have no idea what you mean by “deracinated localism of the mind”. Since you place such great emphasis on sentiments of the heart, one might think you would be more sympathetic to those whose sentiments of the heart lead them to marry someone of a different race or nationality.
When the Romans invaded Britain, the Celts/Gauls there finally united under Boedicia and then later (in failure) behind Galgacus.
They weren’t uniting as human beings; they were uniting as Britain.
Post-WWII, sophists have played local patriotism against a more extended nationalism, and yet nothing could be further from the truth.
Each has its own place. Localism and nationalism go together.
It is dreamt that nationalism is somehow a modern creation, but there are hundreds of contrary examples of past nations to counter this.
Americans, Europeans (incl. Catholics) are today reacting blindly against WWII. And in their desperation to prevent a past tragedy, they’re creating a new tragedy.
It’s a shame a sane balance can’t be achieved…
And certainly it goes without saying that Hitler went to the other extreme: he destroyed the local to bolster the national. You and CaptainChaos are simply at two different extremes. The ideal is to deal with natural ties as they exist rather than attempting to mold new ties. It would take thousands of years to regrow the roots lost…
Britain might not ring as true with you as it does with me.
How about Aristotle:
Another cause of revolution is difference of races which do not at once acquire a common spirit; for a state is not the growth of a day, any more than it grows out of a multitude brought together by accident. Hence the reception of strangers in colonies, either at the time of their foundation or afterwards, has generally produced revolution; for example, the Achaeans who joined the Troezenians in the foundation of Sybaris, becoming later the more numerous, expelled them; hence the curse fell upon Sybaris. At Thurii the Sybarites quarrelled with their fellow-colonists; thinking that the land belonged to them, they wanted too much of it and were driven out. At Byzantium the new colonists were detected in a conspiracy, and were expelled by force of arms; the people of Antissa, who had received the Chian exiles, fought with them, and drove them out; and the Zancleans, after having received the Samians, were driven by them out of their own city. The citizens of Apollonia on the Euxine, after the introduction of a fresh body of colonists, had a revolution; the Syracusans, after the expulsion of their tyrants, having admitted strangers and mercenaries to the rights of citizenship, quarrelled and came to blows; the people of Amphipolis, having received Chalcidian colonists, were nearly all expelled by them.
Similar events are bound to happen all over the US, and the blame will rest fully on those who supported mass immigration.
Considering what’s claimed as Christian nowadays, I fear more articles like the one at the top of this page are to come, and ultimately a pagan revival…
It’s no more lustful to be attracted to someone of a different nationality or race than to be attracted to one of your own. Attraction to the opposite sex is not lust at all. And as far as thinking of children is concerned, it would appear than trans-national and trans-racial unions are thinking of children as these are frequently more fruitful than unions within the same race or nation – this very much to the horror of the racially and nationally obsessed.
And as far as nationalism and localism going hand in hand, where is that illustrated? In the American south, crushed and “reconstructed” by the national government? In revolutionary France, where local customs were abolished and provincial populations massacred wholesale if they objected?
“If England and America had stayed out of the war, as Buchanan wishes they had, Nazism would have become dominant in Europe. So I guess that would have been an acceptable outcome in Buchanan’s mind.”
I really hesitate to get into this with you, but no Captainchaos that is not what Buchanan thinks. Buchanan thinks that Germany and Russia would have fought each other to a stalemate significantly weakening both. In what may be wishful thinking, I think he believes Germany would not have been as radical were not impending defeat so clear. The first part of that seems more likely to me than the second.
Captainchaos, I’m opposed to wars of conquest and occupation by nation states driven by predatory nationalism. I’m also opposed to the use of force and violence to crush peaceful attempts at secession. That doesn’t mean I’m necessarily in favor of every custom or institution of white southerners, comanches, Iraqis, Afghans, Japanese or whatever other peoples have been brutally smashed by the US.
In most countries where slavery was abolished, this was done with minimum to no bloodshed, nor was there felt to be any need afterward to erect a vast system of unjust social controls to protect “racial stock”. The two big exceptions to this were the US and Haiti. In the latter, the French nationalists attempted to re-establish slavery by force and their defeat by the slaves led to the massacre and expulsion of whites from the island entirely. Haiti’s fate since, including being used as a convenient punching bag by various US regimes, is quite pathetic.
In the case of the US, the brutal war and reconstruction imposed on the south led to internal social problems that have still not been entirely resolved. Worse yet, it gave the Americans both the self-confidence and the military power they would need to begin to impose their system on the rest of the world using the same Shermanesque methods they used against the Confederates.
My point was that nationalism, far from going hand in hand with “localism”, is brutally opposed to local arrangements if these are contrary to national policy. I was not endorsing any or all local arrangements. One of the advantages of having a variety of local arrangements is the relative ease of moving from a locality with uncongenial ones to a locality which suits you better.
I’m certainly not an intellectual so much as some others here and at related sites are. I’m just a Southerner living in the wrong era – a dereconstructed residue. I noticed when I went to college, most of my local buddies (not folks posting here – I can’t get many to come to CHT or other political sites) adopted more “mainstream” views as a result of the education. I just never changed my views from then, and I took to heart the stories I heard from history and local events and views. I live in an incredibly diverse area, so I understand well the tensions and ties that exist between us, and I also understand that most people prefer not to think on such unpleasantries, even if most natives I think generally agree with me, albeit only when pressed to respond.
It wasn’t you who twisted my arm this time, but MRob who opened this discussion. “Darwininian traditionalism” is ah pretty dang racial, haha.
Hitler sought maximal productivity in Germany to bring the state to the best of its ability to fight what he perceived as an, ah, epic threat from Jews who had in his perception taken over European states.
However, this type of mercantilism that seeks to maximise productivity erases other important functions from society. It’s understandable and commendable when in a struggle of life and death as Hitler viewed himself, but I’m of the impression that Hitler could have averted war on both fronts.
Hitler ultimately wanted to take over the world. Even if he would have stopped expanding after uniting Germany and even if he saw western Europe (Britain especially) as natural allies, his ultimate enemy all along was communism, which he believed must be fought and for the world. Again, he viewed such global conflict as necessary, similar to how these neocons believe they must conquer the world with “democracy”, but I get the impression he was wrong.
Until someone proves to me that he was not a paranoid maniac who led his people to ruin, I’m going to continue believing he was in the wrong.
And of course the Holocaust, which you deny having taken place, was incredibly aweful. Were someone to believe such was necessary, it’s more understandable, albeit never justifiable. But such surely wasn’t necessary.
I recognise that Hitler likely wanted what was best for Germany. He was likely a good nationalist at heart willing to sacrifice his all for the people he loved and viewed under attack. However, good intentions don’t excuse what I perceive as bad actions.
I continue to use the “I perceive” here because I honestly haven’t researched the events of WWII, other than history books, largely because there are other issues of more importance, and because the issue is so terribly politically charged that it would be a huge headache to figure what’s true and what’s not. I’ve of course read Mein Kamf, and I was recently recommended reading someone named Gottfried Feder.
I’ll just assume Hitler was a monster until otherwise proven wrong.
But while you orient around Hitler, you must realise most Americans don’t. We orient around somewhat similar similar past conflicts. While you view Hitler as a stand against a terrible enemy, many Southerners view the Confederacy as such, and the world wars as either needless suffering or more often as a noble defeat of some evil.
And unless and until you disprove the Holocaust, Hitler will remain unpopular among Americans. Making wild accusations here won’t change this – you’d need to become a researcher, though I again very much doubt you’d find it a hoax. For such a thing to be a giant lie, greatest of all lies, as you believe would be mind boggling. You’ve got first hand reports, physical evidence, and plenty of documents.
Unless and until you disprove the Holocaust though, praising Hitler only works against you. No one likes the idea of killing massive numbers of people. That’s something communists and barbarians do. Whenever someone wants to slander me, the most effective slander is linking me to Hitler somehow. Hitler is to be avoided. You can continue to pretend differently, but such won’t change reality.
the fact that you can’t see how a bastardised child would have difficulty in this world is the difference between us.
In the abstract man might be perceived as antisocial, but in the reality he is very much a social being who takes pride in his ancestors and his people.
You seem to be an honest localist whose nation is honestly the world. However, such is against human nature, and the majority of people aren’t able to transcend such ties. Where these ties don’t exist, people are left confused with a sense of not belonging.
People should have a place they belong, and a unique and ancient people to be a part of.
The false argument against nationalism is that it creates dual morality, which is a major concern to be sure. However, I think the true reality is that bastards are malleable and confused while nationalists of all types have clear traditions, proud history, a unique place of belonging that makes them special and gives them a social group to fit into where otherwise they’d be but another cog in the machine.
I oppose mixing because of the effect it has on all involved.
If possible to not take away from these points, the biological realities mean that different races coming into contact will be forced to separate into a class system, which will create tensions. There’s zero good to come of this mixing. In the past mixing, except at nation destroying moments, occurred at a very slow rate and most often among related groups. Today, that speed is increasingly rapid in America, which entails not only the death of America but the death of her deep European roots as well.
The only logical defense of mixing that I’m capable of comprehending is a belief in globalism, which logically leads to global slavery.
Previously I argued that Hitler probably meant well, and people today are causing the same level of suffering to occur in the future, and they mean well too. I’m sure Lenin meant well too. History is living; horrible events occurred in the past, and they’ll occur in the future for similar reasons.
Mao and Stalin might have been pure monsters though, haha, so not every evil is done with good intentions.
Assuming you’re correct, I still would maintain defending the West now with those leaders who are more tolerable is preferred to building Hitler’s image so that it could be used to defend the West in the future.
If you’re convinced Jews are the ultimate enemy, there are thousands of years of complaints against Jewish actions to use. Hitler is not the only person who didn’t like Jews.
However, I’d like to remind that Western suicide and globalism in general are a more likely enemy. Getting the West to stop slitting its own throat is the ultimate goal. I wish I were strong enough right now to stop that knife. Whether the Moon landing occurred, whether 9/11 is a hoax or something the Mossad at least knew of, whether Castro killed Kennedy, whether the Holocaust is a hoax – these issues don’t appear vitally important to me.
All that’s needed is a gathering of the great minds and works of the past into a sort of curriculum online. If the college brainwashed were only freed from their cognitive dissonance and fuzzy thinking and given the clear arguments and history and culture of their people, there wouldn’t be a problem. Both the pagan and the Christian are a part of the West – we reference Aristotle as much as the Bible. And there’s need for cultural nexuses. Debating Hitler just seems stale and boring from this perspective.
Weaver, a bastard is the term used for a child born outside of marriage, whether his parents are the same race or nationality or a different one. Apparently you do not recognize the legitimacy of children of international or inter-racial marriages. The Catholic Church does recognize the legitimacy of such marriages and that is the church I adhere to, not the church of Weaver. So on that matter we will just have to differ.
I do not consider the world my nation and I’m pretty sure localist is a term you have coined – at least I’ve never heard it used by anyone else. I am a Corpus Christian in the dual sense of the term, a member of the Body of Christ, the Catholic Church, and a citizen of the city named after the Body of Christ. But with respect to any earthly polity, I’m really just a resident alien of rather shaky legal status. That is all a Christian can be in this world.
I was using “localist” in an attempt to pinpoint a set of values which lack a word to represent them, leading to fuzzy thinking.
I’m doubtful the pre-WWII Catholic Church held such views, and my study of the Bible brings me to the conclusion that there are no clear statements on nationalism but that we were created tribally and are meant to preserve this order, especially considering the Tower of Babel event.
That such issues are not covered in the Bible means someone shouldn’t be able to proclaim a stance on them as Christian – in either direction. Neither global slavery nor decentralised nationalism ought to be considered explicitly Christian. That we each view our stances as within the spirit of Christianity does not mean either of us may declare with certainty our correctness.
I’ll never support the destruction of the South and America though, and that’s essentially what we’re debating. And logically speaking, such destruction is likely to be very bloody, which I wouldn’t think Christian.
Some folks here are more moderate than me – actually perhaps everyone here is more moderate, much more moderate even. But the support of mass immigration, despite what a bureaucrat in a Church says, is surely pure evil.
Throughout history there have been nexuses of order and virtue surrounded by both slavery and barbarism. This isn’t going to change.
It’s important that attempts be made to help those in the areas of suffering and barbarism, but this must not be done at the expense of the helping oasis.
Individuals are not interchangeable – since you say you’re not a globalist, then this would be the appropriate argument, though such should be completely obvious. It confounds me how amalgamation could be viewed as anything but globalist – individuals don’t exist like that, we’re social beings with ties of blood and soil.
If you amalgamate blacks and whites and Mexicans, there will be a loss of order giving tradition and identity, as well as unhappiness due to a loss of belonging and other benefits. It is usually best to preserve what identity and tradition exist, and to build upon this rather than attempting a new order, which would likely take a long time to bring about.
What I believe has happened is Marxist sophists have simply used the argument that since we’re all of Adam, race and tradition have no value and are somehow sinful. And then since nationalism can be ideological this was blurred into a claim that nationalism is always ideological.
Marxism’s long march through the institutions has temporarily captured most Christian institutions.
It is Christian to have no fear out of faith in the next life, but I refuse to believe it is Christian to bury one’s head in the sand or to expect mankind to take the Way of the Cross.