SOCIETY FOR THE PROMOTION OF CHRISTIAN ETHNIC HOMELAND NATIONS
The Society is an organization to encourage the establishment of Christian ethnic homelands, by lobbying and other efforts. Secular humanism and multiculturalism are failures rooted in falsehood. Needed instead are homelands for each ethnic people in which Biblical Christian principles are the law of each homeland, in a form that may be called Biblical tribalism.
This is not urging ethnically pure homelands, nor forbidding or prohibiting inter-ethnic and inter-racial marriage, but encouraging homelands for each ethnic group so that each ethnic group has a refuge for that ethnic people or tribe. Immigration and other policies should allow each homeland to preserve that ethnic group’s dominant status within that homeland, so it can remain that ethnic group’s homeland from generation to generation. History has shown that when an ethnic group lacks a homeland, it is often subject to the abuse of the ethnic group in power. Two more recent examples of abusive treatment were the Tutsi Rwandans in then Hutu-dominated Rwanda, and white farmers in Mugabe’s black-controlled Zimbabwe. (It should be pointed out that President Mugabe has not only heaped abuse upon whites, but upon other blacks outside his own tribe. The Ndebele tribe of Zimbabwe should be allowed a homeland separate from the Shona tribe of President Robert Mugabe.) Examples further back in history include the treatment of blacks in white-dominated America when black slavery was legal, and Jews in Czarist Russia and Nazi Germany. Furthermore, each ethnic group has a right to preserve its own culture, heritage and language, insofar as they are not opposed to Biblical principles. And a homeland for each ethnic people and tribe affords the best mechanism for preservation of these.
Each ethnic people should be allowed a homeland, but this Society is especially promoting Christian ethnic homelands, because only Biblical Christianity provides true equity, justice, peace and truth. Christianization of nations is not to be forced by military conquest, but by the work of the Holy Spirit working on the hearts and minds of people. And Biblical Christianity finds its advanced and true expression in the doctrines outlined in the original Westminster Standards. The goal is for each ethnic people and tribe to have its own homeland, and for each such homeland to adhere to the Biblical doctrines outlined in the original Westminster Standards and to be run accordingly. And there is good reason to believe that the Bible promises such as our destiny, to some extent in the “millennium”, and to an even greater extent in the New Earth when Jesus Christ returns.
No ethnic people or tribe should be brow beaten to forego having its own homeland. The liberal politically correct elite would argue Tibetans, Kosovars, Palestinians, and Jews each have a right to a homeland, but would deny such a homeland for white, English-speaking, Christian Americans, labeling the latter idea as racist. The Society rejects such inconsistent treatment as a devilish impediment to Christian rule and peace. The Society lobbies for a homeland for each ethnic group, and it urges that each homeland adopt Christian principles.
Anyone can be a voting member of this Society who agrees with its goals and adheres to the doctrines of the original Westminster Standards. Officers of the Society will be elected by its voting members, and must be male.
Some resources on the topic include:
· Dr. Francis Nigel Lee shows from scripture at http://www.dr-fnlee.org/docs/nri/nri.pdf why ethnic homelands (in which each nation is dominated by a particular national ethnic identity) are and inevitably always will be the case.
· The US has not been a counter-example to Dr. Francis Nigel Lee’s thesis, but an example of it, for historically the US has had a dominant ethnic culture. Dr. Samuel Huntington ably demonstrates this in his book Who Are We: The Challenges to America’s National Identity. He also ably demonstrates that in recent decades there has been a growing lack of assimilation to the dominant historic US culture, which will have a likely fracturing effect, since nations without a dominant ethnic identity cannot successfully hold together.
· Kinism, which asserts that it is permissible or even advisable to prohibit inter-ethnic marriage among Christian believers, is fallacious. No nation or state has the right to separate or nullify what God has joined together, and scripture is abundantly clear that a male and female Christian married to one another, even if they be of different ethnicities or races, constitute a legitimate marriage, and may not be nullified by man on erroneous grounds.
· Articles addressing kinism can be found at http://www.puritans.net/news/kinism072111.htm and http://www.puritans.net/news/kinism081711.htm .
· Biblical tribalism also rejects what has historically been called “segregationism”, which advocates an absolute segregation of the races or ethnicities. There simply was not such an absolute segregationism in ancient Israel, nor should there be in Christian commonwealths today. While Biblical tribalism advocates ethnic homelands, it rejects absolute segregationist models.
·
If Dr. Francis Nigel Lee is correct (and I think
he is) in his article at http://www.dr-fnlee.org/docs/nri/nri.pdf
, one concern (among many) that I have with the current multicultural policy of
the USA (and many other Western nations) is that there is eventually going to
be terrible civil strife to disentangle what was created, worse even than what
Yugoslavia has experienced in its post-communist era. Another concern I have is that eventually in
response to the mess created, there might be a 180 degree pendulum swing to
something that insists upon racial
or ethnic purity within a nation ("ethnic cleansing"), which will
also be misguided and wrong. It seems to
me that the policy since the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965 is
misguided, running contrary to Biblical principles of prudence. It is not an
orderly process of assimilation of foreigners so as to preserve national
cohesion.
· In my article at http://www.puritans.net/news/crisis033011.htm I seek to demonstrate the crisis of national identity that the USA now faces, especially from Mexico, among the many other problems of the USA.
· Harvard professor of political science Robert D. Putnam conducted a nearly decade long study how multiculturalism affects social trust.[15] He surveyed 26,200 people in 40 American communities, finding that when the data were adjusted for class, income and other factors, the more racially diverse a community is, the greater the loss of trust. People in diverse communities "don’t trust the local mayor, they don’t trust the local paper, they don’t trust other people and they don’t trust institutions," writes Putnam.[16] In the presence of such ethnic diversity, Putnam maintains that “[W]e hunker down. We act like turtles. The effect of diversity is worse than had been imagined. And it’s not just that we don’t trust people who are not like us. In diverse communities, we don’t trust people who do look like us.[15]
Here are some miscellaneous comments I have made on the subject (extracted from an internet discussion):
We have
all hopefully ruled out the kinist position that
scripture requires a "racial purity" test for being a citizen of a
nation as well as a prohibition on inter-racial marriage. Having set the kinist theory aside, what does the term "nation"
in scripture commonly mean and imply, such as starting with the Table of
Nations in Genesis 10 ("These [are] the families of the sons of Noah,
after their generations, in their nations: and by these were the nations
divided in the earth after the flood")?
In the sense that even as Gentiles we are part of the 'holy nation' of
the Church (spiritual Israel), is that not because we by God's grace have
chosen to have Abraham as our father in a spiritual sense? I am focusing upon
the use of the term 'nation' in the political sense, and as the term may bear
upon political philosophy. Does not the term nation, especially when used in a
political sense, commonly imply a certain dominant (notice I use the word
dominant and not pure) common ethnic heritage (as well as culture, religion,
and language)? For instance, was not one common dominant feature of the
political nation of Israel is that it consisted of those who had Abraham,
Isaac, and Jacob as their biological ancestors and/or wanted to assimilate into
that people that did (eg, Ruth, Uriah)? (or in contrast, not having descendants of Javan and those who had no desire or interest in
assimilating into the people descended from Abraham, Isaac and Jacob)
I would give this analogy: historically
speaking (including scriptural history) gold and silver have generally been
used as money, just as historically speaking (including scriptural history), a
nation in the political sense (excepting empires) has generally been
characterized by a dominant common ethnic heritage and those who have sought to
assimilate into that dominant group. I am not prepared to say it is sin not to
follow these historical norms, but I am prepared to say that those that have
tried in history not to follow these historical norms have often ended up
having some significant problems and ended up returning to the historical
norms. We could discuss some of the practical reasons they have been historical
norms.
The law must be applied equally and fairly to all within a nation, irrespective of ethnicity, primarily as a matter of Biblical justice, but additionally as a practical matter it is wise for a nation to assimilate its citizenry. Thus far I have been persuaded by arguments such as by Dr. Francis Nigel Lee concerning passages like Revelation 21:24 ("And the nations of them which are saved shall walk in the light of it: and the kings of the earth do bring their glory and honour into it.") that our eschatological destiny is to be many nations under one King Jesus and not one nation (in a political or tribal sense) under one King Jesus. In other words, I believe Christianity makes it possible for the nations to live in peace and love (and, yes, inter-marry, when they want), but not to obliterate all tribal manifestations (see also Isaiah 19:21-25). Regarding the non-theoretical aspects of this, I actually think the nations of Europe can co-exist on far better terms as separate nations, rather than trying to get Europe to become one political nation. I fear that the result of trying to do the latter could be what has happened to Yugoslavia in the last 20 years (civil war leading to break up). And I think the Rwandan genocide perhaps could have been avoided if Tutsis and Hutus had their own separate nations, rather than fighting each other to dominate one nation. A good case study in tribalism among professing Protestant people is the relation of England and the Netherlands over the last 400 years (including the Anglo-Dutch Wars). I am not persuaded God has erased human tribalism in the New Covenant, and I am wary of what may result if we assume human tribalism can be erased in establishing nations.
If all manifestations of tribalism
are sinful/pagan, please address the eschatological
passages I have quoted from Revelation and Isaiah. Furthermore, the trend of
the last 30 years has been in the direction of more tribal/ethnic nationhood,
not less. eg, consider how the Soviet Union broke up
into the ethnic homelands of Armenia, Georgia, etc. consider how Yugoslavia
broke up into Serbia, Croatia, etc, consider how the Germans have united in one
nation but Czechoslovakia broke up into Czech Rep and Slovakia, Sudan is
breaking up along tribal and religious lines, even notice the movement in the
UK away from the United aspect. The effects of trying to have such disparate
nations as Greece and Germany in one economic union are being felt in the
current EU economic fiasco. (If they tried to be in one politically united
nation the problems would be greater not less.)
In addition, if all manifestations
of tribalism are sinful/pagan, is it not odd that God
chose to organize His people - the 12 Tribes of Israel- at least for centuries
both internally and externally- tribally? I fear that American Christians are
tending to 2 un-Biblical extremes: one that takes tribalism to un-Biblical
extreme (kinism) and one that regards all
manifestations of tribalism (and organizing political states along tribalist principles) as sinful/pagan. Can either of these
2 extremes be Biblically supported?
I am not
proposing that Christians are bound by the Israelite tribal laws within the OT
judicial law; I am proposing that all forms of tribalism within the Church (for
even within the OT Church/kingdom, political organization was tribal) are not
inherently sinful/pagan. And I am unable to see how escatological prophecies in the Bible support the view that
all manifestations of tribalism (including organizing political nations along
tribal principles) are sinful/pagan.
It is not sinful not to organize
nations along tribalist lines, just as I do not think
it is sinful if a nation does not use gold and silver as its currency. But in
both cases, people should be aware that they are straying from the historical
norm, and they should not be surprised if problems arise because there are some
very practical reasons why they have been historical norms. (May I submit that
one problem that arises is that some then in reaction take tribalism to an
un-Biblical extreme (such as the kinists are doing).
Both Plymouth Colony of the English Pilgrims and Jamestown Colony were
essentially tribalist societies, *but* the Pilgrims
humanly speaking would not have survived without the Indians like Squanto that
settled with them and advised them (becoming an integral part of their society),
and John Rolfe's marriage to Pocahontas was of great value to Jamestown. And OT
Israel (which was a tribalist society) would not have
fared so well without the help and inclusion of Rahab
and her family. Just to be clear, I agree with the view of all here that
religion (more specifically, the reformed Christian faith) trumps tribalism,
which is why I married who I did. But I would caution against an un-due
aversion to all manifestations of political tribalism, which is such in vogue
among the Western (esp American) intelligentsia, and
in some respects has been imbibed by the American evangelical community, based
upon a mis-interpretation of verses like Galatians
3:28. In my opinion that verse is not intended to prohibit
all distinctions between males and females, nor to prohibit all manifestations
of political tribalism.
It goes against the grain of
scriptural principles to mark one congregation for one ethnicity and another
congregation for another ethnicity. Squanto, living in Plymouth Colony, should
be welcomed in the congregation in Plymouth, not have to walk miles to an
Indian church. (And there should be one worldwide visible reformed church,
consisting of the synods from each nation.) But when it comes to organizing
political nations, I would argue (again, I am speaking practically, not because
I believe this is a matter of Biblical command) having publicly labeled ethnic
homeland nations actually helps inter-ethnic relations, rather than hurting
such relations. If a nation labels itself Greece, because it will be dominated
by Greek ethnicity, culture, language, etc, or Navaho, because it will be
dominated by Navaho ethnicity, culture, language, etc., then it is not
threatening if a non-Greek or non-Navaho family moves in, because it will be
understood they will assimilate into that heritage, culture, language, etc.
("When in Rome, do as the Romans do".) On the other hand, when a
nation takes a multicultural approach, then foreigners that move in can become
much more of a perceived threat or even an actual threat. Is the culture,
language, etc. of this place up for grabs to the tribal group that gets the
political upper hand or increases most in numbers? If Rwanda had been split
between a Hutu-dominated nation and a Tutsi-dominated nation, would the genocide
have been less likely? Now that Bosnian Serbs have a separate political enclave
they dominate from Bosniacs, has that not reduced the
fighting between the two? Would splitting Belgium into 2 not actually help
relations between the Flemish and Walloons?
It would be my view that nations
have the right to pass laws limiting and regulating immigration (most or
perhaps all nations in existence today have such laws), stipulating an official
national language, making sure that schools in the nation teach their nation's
history and heritage (by all means not to the exclusion of the history of the
rest of the world, but with a focus that not each and every other nation gets),
etc. (And of course it is my view that all nations have a moral duty to
stipulate the reformed Christian faith as the national religion.) If it were
immoral for a nation to regulate immigration, and a nation like Israel today
were to have a totally open borders policy, within a relatively short time it
would cease to be a Jewish state, for the majority of its citizens would not be
Jewish and they would in all likelihood not want Jewish political leaders. And
some (many?) would want to see the Jews persecuted. But if a nation can limit
and regulate its immigration, then it can do so in such a way as to preserve its ethnic. cultural and linguistic
dominance in the nation, provided that the people do not immorally kill
offspring or engage in sodomy (but of course I think there should be laws
against that too). Some or even many may believe I am unwarrantably paranoid
about when a people lack any ethnic homeland nation and exist only as a
minority people, but I believe what whites did to blacks in American history
(and remember these were professing Christians) and what blacks have more
recently done to whites in Zimbabwe (and these blacks are professing
Christians) can happen to a minority people at any time. People may want to
believe tribalism can be erased, but I have not yet seen the proof of it, and I
do not even see it in scripture. (But I agree the evil forms of tribalism will
be erased in the New Earth.)
Some Christians suggest that it is wrong for a civil
government to limit and regulate foreign immigration (on ethnic tribal
considerations) on the basis of such passages as 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: I [am] the LORD your
God.") But this argument ignores that there were God ordained laws in
Israel that had the effect of preserving ethnic tribal dominance of a certain
territory, such as Leviticus 25:10 ("And ye shall hallow the fiftieth
year, and proclaim liberty throughout [all] the land unto all the inhabitants
thereof: it shall be a jubile unto you; and ye shall
return every man unto his possession, and ye shall return every man unto his
family.") Commenting upon this verse, Matthew Henry writes:
"That the distinction of tribes should be kept up; for, though a man might
purchase lands in another tribe, yet he could not retain them longer than till
the year of jubilee, and then they would revert of course." I point
this out not to suggest Israel's tribal land laws in the Old Testament judicial
law are binding today, but rather to point out the Biblical propriety of laws
which preserve the ethnic tribal control over a
certain territory. I would further argue that such laws have the effect
of improving relations among the tribes of mankind (including God's people),
because they were not threatened that a foreign tribe (whether Israelite or
non-Israelite) was going to dispossess them of a tribal homeland state under
their control.
If the response back is that Leviticus 25:10 was
put in place solely for messianic purposes, then that has to be proved. I
myself doubt that was the *only* reason for such laws, because 1) the effect
could have been accomplished in other ways 2) mankind has historically
(including in scriptural history) organized politically along tribal principles
(this is not unique to the Jews - see Genesis 10,etc) 3) there are various
verses in scripture which support that a tribal nation's territorial integrity
should be respected (eg, see Moses' request to pass
through the land of Edom), and it would seem a tribal nation would not have to
surrender its territorial control to another tribe just because a lot of people
from another tribe want to immigrate into it. I am not persuaded either that
many will not want to immigrate in so long as there are no extravagant
government welfare programs. If a tribal nation is sitting on oil or gold (just
to take some examples), history shows a lot of foreigners would like to move in
and take over the land (regardless of their government welfare programs).
Hawaii did not have many welfare programs, but the USA and Dole saw fit to get
a lot of the Hawaiians' land (it grows great pineapples) and then take over
their territory. (This was done by professing Christians by the way, for those
who believe mankind has outgrown tribalism via Christianity. I am sorry, but I
do not buy that tribalism is a thing of the past or ever will be. The NAACP, La
Raza, etc etc tell me
otherwise. The wise approach is to constrain tribalism within Biblical
principles (as ancient Israel did), not to try to pretend tribalism can be
erased.) For info on the Hawaiian takeover, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wi
Furthermore, even foreigners converted to the Hebrew religion and admitted into the Old Testament Jewish church did not necessarily attain civil citizenship in Israel, with all of its civil privileges. A relevant quote from Aaron’s Rod Blossoming on this matter of strangers in Israel is as follows: “In respect of members; for, as Mr Selden hath very well observed concerning that sort of proselytes who had the name of Proselyti Justitice.1 They were initiated into the Jewish religion by circumcision, baptism and sacrifice; and they were allowed not only to worship God apart by themselves, but also to come into the church and congregation of Israel, and to be called by the name of Jews,—nevertheless they were restrained and secluded from dignities, magistracies and preferments in the Jewish republic, and from divers marriages which were free to the Israelites, even as strangers initiated and associated into the church of Rome have not therefore the privilege of Roman citizens. Thus Mr Selden, who hath thereby made it manifest that there was a distinction of the Jewish church and Jewish state, because those proselytes, being embodied into the Jewish church as church members, and having a right to communicate in the holy ordinances among the rest of the people of God, yet were not properly members of the Jewish state, nor admitted to civil privileges; whence it is also that the names of Jews and proselytes were used distinctly, Acts ii. 10.” So American theonomists like Gary North and Gary DeMar that allege immigration laws on the basis of ethnicity are illegitimate are without Biblical support. Furthermore, the basis for many American theonomic arguments are contrary to the sound Biblical doctrines outlined in the original Westminster Standards relating to the Israelite judicial law.
Summarily stated, here are some of the leading
principles of the Society:
1.
It has been the
historical norm that nations have been organized along ethnic tribalist principles (Genesis 10), and this historical norm
remains a prudent approach to political organization, so long as it is done
consistent with Biblical principles.
When each tribe has its own homeland nation, there is less likelihood of
abusive and unjust treatment. Even when some are an ethnic minority in one
nation, it is prudent that they have a homeland nation to which to flee if the
majority tribe in their own nation becomes abusive.
2.
It is our
eschatological destiny that nations will be Biblically Christian and
politically organized along ethnic tribalist
principles (Isaiah 19:21-25, Matthew 28:19-20, Revelation 21:24).
3.
Biblical ethnic tribalist principles mean a political nation is dominated
by a particular ethnic tribe, but it does not mean it is “racially/ethnically
pure”, as is abundantly clear in the case with the ancient Israelites. It consisted of those
who had Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob as their biological ancestors, but also had
those of other ethnicities that wanted to assimilate into that people (eg, Ruth, Uriah).
4. We believe it is the right of every
ethnic tribal nation to enforce immigration laws which allow that tribe to
remain the dominant tribe in their nation.
5. We believe Christ’s visible church
should be united around the world according to Presbyterian principles outlined
in the original Westminster Standards, without respect to ethnicity.
6. We believe that no person ought to
be excluded from membership or officership, treated
in a second class manner, or treated as unwelcome to attend or join any
Christian congregation on the basis of that person’s ethnicity or race.
7. We reject kinism,
which teaches that a government has a right to outlaw marriage between people
of two different ethnicities though they both be Christians, whereas the Bible
teaches that what God has joined together, let not man put asunder, and many
Biblical saints rightfully married outside their ethnic tribe (Joseph, Moses,
Boaz, Bathsheba, etc.).
8. We reject Nazism,
that calls for racially and ethnically pure nations, as contrary to
sound scriptural doctrine and in reality impossible to implement, but
disastrous when tried.
9.
We
reject imperialism, which generally amounts to one tribal people lording it
over other tribal peoples in unjust ways, and improperly disrespects the
national sovereignty rights of other tribal peoples.
10. Tribalism is a natural and non-sinful characteristic of mankind, but tribalism can take on sinful manifestations, and the sinful manifestations should be condemned and rejected, but not tribalism itself. Efforts to erase tribalism will not succeed, and such efforts generally make matters worse.