I’ve noticed that some of the more racially-focused reactionaries are rather down on the Church today, in some recent posts (see here, here, and here).
I am both a Christian and someone who both doesn’t adhere to radical egalitarianism of any kind, sexual or racial (even though I’m mixed-race (half-East Indian) myself); and who also mourns the decline of the West.
I am dismayed at much in the modern Church today, from the sold-out-to-cultural-trends of the mainline Protestantism I grew up in, to the selling-out-to-cultural-trends of many evangelicals and some Reformed (I agree in the main with much of the above blogger’s criticisms of the likes of Richard Land, John Piper, and Russell Moore linked in the third post (in terms of their obsession with racial politics, and overall girly-man wussiness), and also the apparent illegal immigrant amnesty being put forward by U.S. bishops (as discussed in the second post), as well as the new pontiff’s apparent Third-World-first political priorities. But, all that being said, while I am convinced this is an unfortunate state of affairs, Christianity has always been universalist at least in terms of spreading the Gospel, and as I’ve stated before, I don’t think one can make a compelling Scriptural argument against racial intermarriage, only religious intermarriage.
But I think the more racially-focused reactionaries are wrong to lay the deformations of modern Christianity at the feet of Christianity itself, as they oft seem wont to do; such is comparable, in my opinion, to blaming the parents of a child they tried to bring up rightly but who nevertheless rebelled and ran away, for his rebellion. And I am not convinced that being a Christian is incompatible with concerns about national and ethnic preservation, in the least; I haven’t seen anything in Scripture that actively militates against Christians having such concerns and acting upon them, either. (If anyone can demonstrate otherwise, please do so.)
And what solutions do such reactionaries put forward? From the posts, comments, and linked posts, it would seem that some propose Islam, while others of course, as often is the case, champion a return to European paganism.
No. Neither will do; Christianity is the Truth, for those of us who believe, and since we believe it to be so, we can’t abandon it, nor would we want to.
As for Islam, it is the Other, and is far less ‘European’ than Christianity is, for those for whom such is a major consideration; it seems absurd to embrace it as if it were an alternative (it is equally universalist, too; note the aggressive historic proselytization and even forced conversions of the Arabs to Persians, Turks and Turkic peoples, Africans, Indians, Malays, etc.; also, as countries like Sudan demonstrate, it never forbade intermarriage between Arabs and others, hence Sudan is a black, Arabic-speaking nation; and today, the aggressive conversion attempts continue in Africa and elsewhere).
As for paganism, that’s just absurd. Paganism represents an early phase of Europeans’ beliefs, and Europe’s greatness, in terms of the timeframe of its greatest advancements, lay in its acceptance of the Faith and abandonment of belief in Odin, etc.
Two quotes from a Roman Catholic thinker, Ron Neff:
http://www.thornwalker.com/ditch/repat_west.htm
It is a simple historical fact that the West grew up and thrived so closely knit to Christianity that it cannot be imagined without it. The West without cathedrals? without its religious art and music? without its distinctive codes of law?
It may be that the whites of Western Europe could have developed a distinctive civilization without Christianity, but there is no guarantee that it would be anything we could recognize. Certainly the whites of Persia built nothing like it. As a matter of empirical fact, we can also say that it was not the Norse warrior ethic or devotion to gods of the forest that made the West great. And the only empirical evidence that philosophical atheism can build a civilization is not such as to inspire confidence. (In that connection, and given the subject of this article, we may recall that Stalin the atheist outdid even Hitler the apostate in brutally uprooting and forcibly repatriating entire peoples.)
Empirically speaking, then, there is no evidence whatever that there could be a West or anything like it without Christianity. [11]
That does not count as an argument for the truth of the doctrines of Christianity, but it should give pause to those Westerners who have departed from those doctrines. Since the empirical evidence is to the contrary, what evidence can there be that the whites of America or Europe can ever thrive without reclaiming them, or rather without being reclaimed by them?
Moreover, as a matter of historical fact, it is only in the embrace of Christianity that we have ever seen a people acknowledge the supreme dignity and value of the individual. And it is surely only once that acknowledgement is made that we ever see an advancement toward liberty.
That advancement, too, is part of our heritage. We cannot go back to being whatever it was we were before the monks of Lindisfarne christianized Europe. For better or worse, it was we who lit the flame of liberty and became its guardians. We cannot let it be extinguished in response to the cry that survival is the first law. If we don’t guard that flame, we don’t survive.
http://www.thornwalker.com/ditch/repat_westnotes.htm#note11
There can be no doubt that the Northern peoples carried within their unique type of courage, curiosity, and humor the seeds of greatness. But as a matter of historical fact, those seeds grew and their flowers thrived not in the roots of Yggdrasil but at the foot of the Cross.
Just so. And I’m not convinced that some of the neo-pagan alt-right crowd who promote Odinism really actually believe in Odin; I’m convinced they’re play-acting, waving it around like a flag, promoting it simply as more in line with their anti-Christian prejudices. But if they genuinely believe in it, they’re even more idiotic than I thought. Paganism is the faith of less advanced peoples. And as Hilaire Belloc said, “The Faith is Europe; and Europe is the Faith.”
I don’t have any easy answers, as to how we can combat those in our churches who pander to leftism; promote acceptance of illegal immigration, allowing non-Westerners to flood across our borders, or who seem obsessed with pandering to people of other races by questioning the Zimmerman verdict (see the linked interview), etc.; any more than I have any easy answers as to how we go about rooting out Blue-Pill views in churches, either.
But abandonment of the Faith is not an option.
Patriactionary 
Reader
September 6, 2013 at 9:49 pm
” don’t think one can make a compelling Scriptural argument against racial intermarriage,”
I’m sure some Christians would disagree: http://prowesternchristianity.blogspot.com/2013/02/a-pro-western-christian-reading-list.html
And one can certainly make a biological argument: http://sociobiologicalmusings.blogspot.com/2011/10/problems-with-mixed-race-marriages-and.html
Will S.
September 6, 2013 at 10:15 pm
Oh yes, I’ve seen that first link. I’m familiar with the arguments of the Kinists; see my above-linked post here. They don’t have any Scriptural basis, apart from absurd attempts to prove that blacks, for example, are the descendents of Ham, or that the Commandment against adultery also is against interracial marriage. That’s absurd, because interracial marriage is just that, joining together in marriage of a man and woman, just like any other joining together of a man and woman, unless one contends that one of the pair is not human but is an ape, which is not so, given that viable offspring result, unlike would happen if a human and an ape mated.
Here is a decent good essay on the Old Testament marriage prohibitions; they are about religion, and not race, per se, as persuasively argued there.
As regards any potential biological arguments one can ostensibly make; while I’m dubious, have at it! I don’t care if people can find solid scientific grounds to make against such practices, that, in my opinion, is potentially a legitimate reason (if the arguments are indeed legitimate ones, scientifically). I haven’t seen any compelling reasons yet from a Scriptural standpoint to indicate that so doing is sinful, and immoral, therefore.
Moreover, while as I stated in my previous post, I don’t care if people choose not to marry someone of another race, or even if they choose to encourage their children to do likewise; I care only that no-one try to say that Scripture says something it doesn’t. And further, even if one may legitimately argue that there are negative consequences genetically from racial intermarriage, that to me is no more a prohibition than noting that if a healthy person mates with someone with a genetic disability or disease, that they’re more likely to pass on that to their offspring than they would if they married a fellow healthy person. Fine, but that doesn’t mean healthy people are obligated to only marry and mate with healthy people, or that those with diseases and disabilities ought to be forbidden to marry healthy people. I’m not a eugenicist. I neither believe that law should forbid healthy-unhealthy people intermarriages; nor do I consider them immoral, based on Scripture. And so I also would view interracial marriage even if it were demonstrably genetically problematic.
Foseti
September 6, 2013 at 10:39 pm
Very few of us (race-focused – did you catch yourself from saying “racist”?) reactionaries have ever suggested you abandon your faith. To the contrary, most of us admire much about your faith.
However – and this distinction appears to be too difficult for virtually everyone to grasp – we merely are attempting to point out that Christianity is not the road to a more traditional, orderly society. Indeed, your chronicling of all the left-wing activism of the establishment churches does a nice job of illustrating our point.
Will S.
September 6, 2013 at 10:47 pm
‘Racist’ is a loaded word, I tend to eschew, due to its being loaded with progressive biases.
See, I disagree; I think that Christianity as practiced in, for instance, a traditionalist Dutch, Reformed church like the kind I worship in, can indeed be such a road; it certainly has preserved such amongst my brethren, so no reason why such can’t be extended to the wider world. Simply would require that more churches return to their roots, and turn away from the trends that admittedly have been all too present in the wider Christian world in the last century and a half in particular…
endwatcher
September 7, 2013 at 1:46 am
Scripturally race is not an issue. Moses married an Ethiopian, Rahab and Ruth were not jewish. (and had children that were part of the line to Christ). The Bible does indeed say to not marry unbelievers. Examples of misfortune due to that practice include Solomon’s foreign wives who seduced him from the faith, and Jezebel who worshipped Baal and gave that horrid faith succor.
Those who marry unbelievers will have the devil as their father-in-law. A bad wife or husband will ruin you in everyway.
While race isn’t a scriptural reason not to intermarry, I believe it is still problematic to do so in the United States at least in 2013. When you consider blacks and whites you have two distinct cultures and at least one of them is destructive presently(Yes black, with whites rapidly becoming just as bad). Exposing your children and your family to that will not make it stronger. Diversity is division, while unity is strength. Blacks and whites currently have no ability to unify into one culture, which is what is needed before integrating families.
While there are certainly exceptional people of both races capable of creating a strong unified mixed family, they are the exception and not the rule.
I assume the reason race reactionaries object to Christianity is due to it being open to other cultures, and integrating them into one church. They probably feel that is a recipe for corruption, while a more provincial race-religion will have more unity and thus more able to create a stable and strong culture.
In the worldly sense they are being proven correct, but the problem is not Christianity imo, but the corruption of it. A fundamentalist church(Simple faith, Bible is the final word) creates a strong culture in its own right, and many races can be in it and still be of one culture. When done properly it produces a brotherhood of man that is unified in the faith of Jesus, the head of the church. Under such conditions a black man who is a believer is my brother, and the white heathen is not.
I doubt we shall see a true return of fundamentalism though in this country, progressivism in the church has been well underway for 100 years and more, and with that comes strange doctrines and divisions. It shall never be unified, and the races cannot unify under it because it is divided. Obviously we could go on about this for longer, but this post is long enough.
oogenhand
September 7, 2013 at 4:23 am
Reblogged this on oogenhand and commented:
I agree that without Christianity, the West would no longer be the West. I agree that the religious question is more important than the racial, but I also think that Christianity has certain weaknesses in dealing with its competitors Islam and Judaism.
Will S.
September 7, 2013 at 10:05 am
@ endwatcher: I don’t deny that racial intermarriage in North America today can be problematic; certainly, as a product of such an intermarriage, let me tell you, my childhood was often difficult; I discussed this briefly previously, in fact, here. And as I said there, people do well, IMO, to factor that into consideration, before embarking on an interracial romance.
Yes, Scripture indeed only explicitly forbids marriage between a believer and a non-believer. That is most important.
I think, from what they’ve written, and as per Foseti’s comment above, that reactionaries focused particularly on racial matters are looking in particular at the negative impacts that radically egalitarian views brought into churches have had, socially, and politically. Where I think they err, is both in assuming that all of the Faith is identical in these regards (e.g. my church tradition is highly ethnic, and very traditionalist, and has stayed that way, in spite of modern trends), and in assuming that this IS the Faith, rather than merely a modern deformation of it.
I admire the resolve of fundamentalists, their eschewing of modernity, and not caring what the outside world thinks. I agree that the wider appeal of such grows smaller day by day, in our modern world.
Will S.
September 7, 2013 at 10:07 am
@ oogenhand: I’ve responded over there.
infowarrior1
September 7, 2013 at 10:29 am
@Will S.
Modernity intrudes and takes the kids by force to be indoctrinated by the government in Germany. To retreat from modernity is not the answer there is no escape. Only by changing western culture can there be any victory.
Will S.
September 7, 2013 at 10:51 am
True enough, infowarrior1. But how can we change Western culture, without the numbers? We have to marry and breed, a lot – but given the reality of modern young women, even many church girls, and the laws that have given rise to the sham that is Marriage 2.0, how do you get men and women to marry today? Why would any young man today not be wary and very careful, and why shouldn’t he be somewhat disinclined, despite natural inclinations to do so – as I am?
There’s the rub…
infowarrior1
September 7, 2013 at 10:07 pm
@Will S.
I can only hope that God brings about a revival. Prayer is needed lots of it. Before a spiritual victory can be won.
Else the wrath of God will clean up things but will burn everyone along the way.
Will S.
September 7, 2013 at 10:13 pm
Yeah, I pray for such a revival, myself. But I am also considering the possibility that we are reaping the punishment we justly deserve, collectively, for having collectively abandoned the Faith, as a civilization, and that God is raising up His church in Africa and elsewhere in the Third World for a reason.
Red
September 7, 2013 at 10:54 pm
The guys who talk about Odin know it’s not real. But they’re embracing religion on the basis that’s it’s a synthetic tribe that provide unity, community and benefits to it’s members. An ethic religion does that. Most of those guys would probably be christens if Christianity acted more like the synthetic tribe it used to be, instead of the progressive propaganda machine it is today.
And before you people start telling me about all the benefits to Christianity: Look at the coptics. Any christens trying to help protect them? Anyone sending them money for bribes or guns to defend themselves? Any Christan churches kicking out women who destroy marriages? I’m not seeing it. You shall know them by their fruit. And the fruit of the Christan church is very stinky.
As far as race goes the old catholic method of always siding with what’s best for community locally is the way to go. Long term Mexicans are not going to benefit from even more Mexicans making the US into Mexico and neither are Whites and Asians. The only people who benefit are the churches and progressives and it’s a very short term gain for the churches. Racial integration between smarter majority and dumber minority just drags down in the average IQ in the long run. That’s not healthy for any society. You want to elevate a dumber minority is through strict requirements on child production that favors the best of the community. Something that the church has done through out it’s history until the Protestant reformation.
Will S.
September 8, 2013 at 8:48 am
@ Red: Christ didn’t promise His followers that they would not endure suffering and hardships on this Earth; in fact, just the opposite, He told us to expect them. And yes, we fall down sometimes in helping our fellow believers as well as others in general, plus we sometimes fall into the trap of embracing the ways of the world. But Christianity’s benefits are eternal, not temporal.
Red
September 9, 2013 at 8:03 am
” Christ didn’t promise His followers that they would not endure suffering and hardships on this Earth; in fact, just the opposite, He told us to expect them.”
So you let your fellow christens be murdered by Islam? Islam is the spawn of Satan and you’re fine with them murdering your own? What kind of monster are you? At least the Christians under Nero organized system of support and helped Christians hide in the catacombs. Modern christens were more likely to help the Jews avoid the death camps than lift a fingers to help their own.
“And yes, we fall down sometimes in helping our fellow believers as well as others in general, plus we sometimes fall into the trap of embracing the ways of the world.”
By falling down you mean let millions of christens be murdered? What has the church done about it? Nothing. I’ve yet to see a single church enforcing biblical codes of conduct for the female members. They’ve abandoned the bible and embraced the world entirely.
“But Christianity’s benefits are eternal, not temporal.”
Well then Christianity will soon be a dead religion. Why should anyone go to church? Follow me or burn in hell was not the message that Jesus preached. He created a church that was good for people on earth and that church spent a hell of a lot of time making sure the community the temporal church created worked well. Ignoring the utter failure of the temporal church is nothing more than sticking your head in the ground.
Yes I’m not part of your faith but I was raised in it. After 19 years of going to church I saw nothing healthy about the Christan community. What I did see was a lot of failed marriages, boys being told they’re bad for being male, and people playing holier than thou games with various Christan fads.
Red
September 9, 2013 at 8:29 am
“I don’t have any easy answers, as to how we can combat those in our churches who pander to leftism; promote acceptance of illegal immigration, allowing non-Westerners to flood across our borders, or who seem obsessed with pandering to people of other races by questioning the Zimmerman verdict (see the linked interview), etc.; any more than I have any easy answers as to how we go about rooting out Blue-Pill views in churches, either.
But abandonment of the Faith is not an option.”
Here’s some general tips:
Heretics must be expelled and shunned by the Christan community. Right now you treat heretics as misguided believers. They’re not. Heretics are infiltrators who are destroying the church that Paul built from within. You need an oath covering at least 40 major points of Christan theological aimed against infiltration from progressives. Every member must swear the oath line for line or be expelled. The oath must be resown every year. Every church that rejects of modifies the Oath must be expelled from the community. Anyone who publicly disagrees with the contents of that oath should be tossed out immediately.
Bring back tradition as the primary teaching method instead of letting every dumb ass with a bible make his own mind up. Your churches should act, think, and focus locally first. Bring back the patriarchal family. Divorced women and single mothers have no place in your churches. They can be christens and they can be ministered to outside the church but you can no more allow sluts and adulteries in the body of Christians than you can have pedophiles teaching children. Corruption is sure to follow if you allow harlots into your church. Christians should always help Christians first. First with jobs, first with aid, first with protection. Do things as a group.
Will S.
September 9, 2013 at 8:31 am
If it were up to me, we would not antagonize the Muslims through a Zionist foreign policy, and indeed would try to help our own.
You’re like those I’ve discussed: you blame the Faith itself for its deformation; e.g. Christianity actually condemns divorce in Scripture, but you blame the Faith for failed marriages, rather than recognizing it is the Faith distorted, perverted, gone astray, that is responsible for such – churches not condemning divorce as they should, and parishioners engaging in that which they should not.
We here criticize Blue Pill ‘churchianity’. But we hold to Christianity.
If you want the last word, go ahead. I’m done talking.
AAB
September 9, 2013 at 8:50 am
“Paganism is the faith of less advanced peoples.”
I wont list all the achievements of paganism in the ancient world (from both Europe and Asia) because that list would go on forever, but you must be informed enough to know that the renaissance in Europe was due to the translation of Greek pagan texts, not because of Christianity.
Schopenhauer summed it up best: “Europe has flourished in spite of Christianity not because of it.”
The same will apply to China and any other race that adopts Christianity or Islam instead of choosing polytheism or paganism. Ancient India and ancient China didn’t need Christianity to flourish, they don’t need it now.
Christianity, along with Judaism and Islam, is like a ‘cut and shut’ car sold by a second-hand used car salesman, who has the audacity to claim the cars are ‘original’ AND that they are ‘the best’ (one true religion), when neither are true because they are stolen and rehashed from pagan beliefs (like The Epic of Gilgamesh etc). Paganism in contrast makes no such claim. Paganism is not that arrogant, it has humility – the attribute that Christians claim too have!
Will S.
September 9, 2013 at 10:49 am
The Renaissance happened in the context of a Christian Europe; nothing comparable happened in the pagan Greek culture itself beforehand. Paganism alone couldn’t have produced it – it didn’t.
I don’t deny all the many achievements of pagan peoples in ancient Greece, Rome, Egypt, and Asia – but all these were far surpassed by the achievements made in Christendom later.
We don’t boast in ourselves; we boast in God, and what He has done. We are far less arrogant than pagans, in that.
RedOne
September 9, 2013 at 4:34 pm
“You’re like those I’ve discussed: you blame the Faith itself for its deformation; e.g. Christianity actually condemns divorce in Scripture, but you blame the Faith for failed marriages, rather than recognizing it is the Faith distorted, perverted, gone astray, that is responsible for such – churches not condemning divorce as they should, and parishioners engaging in that which they should not.”
Do you brand so call Christians who accept divorce as heretics? If not then you’ve fundamentally given up the christian faith. The church was created to guide the flock towards righteous behavior. It’s given up on that role and it doesn’t have to be that way.
Take over your local churches. Expel the heretics, the gluttons, the harlots and bring in traditional Christianity. Accepting that the world will hate your faith is one thing, but accepting that the church of Christ can’t be purged of it’s heretics is to give up on Jesus himself. Winnow the weevils and restore the body of Christ.
I don’t blame the faith. I blame the people of the faith who accept the practice of heresy as normal and something that can’t be fixed through action. Put together a working oath, form an organization and start taking churches over. There’s a real hunger for true Christianity. Build a true church and people will come.
AAB
September 10, 2013 at 10:13 am
“all these were far surpassed by the achievements made in Christendom later.”
That’s quite simply untrue. Nothing on the scale of the pyramids (built by pagans) was achieved until christianity was well on the decline. Pre-renaissance christianity incarcerated Galileo and burnt Bruno, that doesn’t exactly speak of a belief system conducive to technological progress.
“We don’t boast in ourselves; we boast in God, and what He has done. We are far less arrogant than pagans, in that.”
Far less arrogant! Tell that to the christians who decided to wreck the ancient pagan monuments and places of worship. Lets not forget that the christians were allowed to worship in pagan Rome, but what happened when the christians started to rule? Were they as tolerant? No they weren’t. They were the polar opposite. They did what they did to the pagan places of worship as they did to the Library at Alexandria (one the wonders of the world) they burnt them to the ground and killed the believers.
Will S.
September 10, 2013 at 11:52 am
Did the ancient pagan civilizations or the modern pagans of Japan, China, India invent the internal combustion engine, space travel, the computer? So the ancients could make big things out of bricks. Whoop-de-fricking-do!
Speaking of killing believers, what did the pagan Frisians do to St. Boniface? Do you really want to go tit-for-tat? Historically, no-one was as tolerant of other faiths and their believers, as we are today in our liberal democratic society; no one side can claim moral superiority in that regard, nor was I trying to.
I was talking about boasting about the truthfulness of our Faith; if we do so, we don’t do so in ourselves, since we recognize our Faith as merely a revelation from the Almighty. We have no cause to boast in ourselves.
Have the last word, if you wish; I’m done talking.
AAB
September 11, 2013 at 10:19 am
“Have the last word, if you wish; I’m done talking.”
That’s decent of you (no sarcasm intended).
You’re right that ancient pagans didn’t invent the internal combustion engine (though the ancient Greeks did invent the steam engine), but your missing out one important factor: knowledge accumulation. The only reason we know in the twentieth century are capable of developing internal combustion engines, computers etc, is because our ancestors developed the technology to allow us to develop such things. For instance without iron ore processing (developed by Hitites, IIRC) we would not be able to develop tools to manufacture anything, without agriculture (developed in the Middle-East, possibly) then we would not be able to grow rubber plantations to produce the rubber needed for tyres. The accumulation of knowledge over a long period of time (by our ancestors, people whom pagans typically respect) is essential to allow advancements. This principle applies to both individual humans as much as societies.
ho
September 14, 2013 at 3:37 pm
“even forced conversions of the Arabs to Persians, Turks and Turkic peoples, Africans, Indians, Malays”
When did this happen?
Muslims treated non muslims as second class citizens (higher taxes) but they were still treating them way better than medieval christians. The difference being that Europe lived through renaissance and enlightenment and the Islamic world didn’t.
Will S.
September 14, 2013 at 7:12 pm
Since 1 A.H. (Anno Hegirae), is when it happened; only Christians and Jews were subject to the gizya (head tax), and allowed to pay it and keep their faith; Hindus and pagans were forced to convert at sword-point. Read history texts about Islam; you’ll find this out.
Sometimes they even force Christians to convert, esp. today.
Here are a couple links, but Google the subject, you’ll find much more.
http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/Quran/013-forced-conversion.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forced_conversion#Islam
As the Wiki notes, they will deny it and cite Koranic verses to deny it, but they practice it nevertheless, as the other link clearly shows. And it is well-known that they did it historically with Hindus, hence why so many from that subcontinent became and remain Muslim today; also, they did it with the Zoroastrians of Persia, who are almost gone, though some fled centuries ago to Bombay, India, where they are the Parsis (Farsis) today, still practicing Zoroastrianism. Pagan Turkish religions have died out, because of Islam.
Don’t kid yourself that this was all voluntary conversion, or people seeking tax relief; much was forcible. That’s how the ‘religion of peace’ operated, and still operates.
hpx83
September 19, 2013 at 3:25 pm
Many try to focus on “what can be done”. My answer is, right now, nothing can be done. Undoubtedly, this is a period of cultural darkness. Such periods will always come. This one will most likely last long enough that those now writing will at most see a glimpse of light at the end of the tunnel.
The only thing that can now be done is to try and keep the lights on, so that someone remembers the Western tradition and Christianity. That is all. Should we fail, then the West is over, and there is no telling if it can ever come back.
People think that the cultural war is being fought now. It has already been fought, and lost. The status quo cannot be saved. People of today, for the most part, cannot be saved. Not until there is born a generation where enough people learn to despise the society they are born into can there be any change.
Keep the lights on. Say a prayer for future generations. Make sure someone remembers where the West came from. That is all.
alcestiseshtemoa
October 13, 2013 at 5:19 am
Will S, this discussion is clouded by the factor that Anglospherian countries such as the USA are typically quite new to the experience with miscegenation, unlike say Central-South America America.
Ironically, the more a person comes from a country where interracial marriages where banned or disapproved, the more likely they are to approve of such things, whereas the ones where this happened the earliest and are more common (think Central-South America), tend to dislike it more and have created caste systems, SES and colorism combined.
I think that intermarriage is generally a bad thing and yes I’m also the product of such union (particularly, one of the worst types of intermarriage on earth, one between a sub-Saharan black Negroid man and a white Caucasian woman, where there are wide racial/ethnic differences, status differentials and skin color differences combined).
I think there’s a general caste system and colorism which would be a good guide between most intermarriages. A Korean person and a Japanese person are different, but their children would still be more on the East Asian (Mongoloid) cultural and ethnic side (both could be Buddhists). A Christian Middle Eastern Caucasian person and a Christian Western European person, tend to have white Caucasian children.
On the other hand, extreme disparities, such as Negroid plus Caucasoid, or Caucasoid plus Mongoloid, or Mongoloid plus Negroid, are truly more difficult and much more likely to end in disaster, conflicts (nuclear/extended family disapproval, communal shame), divorce/separation, depression, suicide, abortion, miscarriages and the like.
I’m a sole outlier, because between out of many couplings I knew like my parents, most divorced and their lives ended up badly, with their depressed biracial children going anywhere between neutral to bad (almost never good). I myself went through depression through my teenage years and had a lot of psychological/mental issues. There is also the shame factor in a communal and societal basis, and I can’t blame them for that.
But I never want for another child to go want I went through. I’m not a “misery loves company” person, though I do tend to talk a lot and sometimes stay mopping.
alcestiseshtemoa
October 13, 2013 at 5:21 am
My vote is to shame and disapprove most (if not all) interracial marriages firstly, followed by certain interethnic marriages (some are good, others not so).
Will S.
October 13, 2013 at 4:11 pm
alcest, as I said here, growing up mixed myself was not easy, and I do encourage people considering embarking on a relationship with someone of a different race to also consider the challenges any potential children which might result if marriage occurs would face.
I don’t think one can derive Scriptural arguments against it, though; only rational ones, which means that at most, one can say that it’s perhaps unwise, but not that it’s immoral. Anyway, the problem with such reason-based arguments, of course, is that when people fall in love, they often turn off their brains.
Oh well. C’est la vie…