Japan’s Homogeneity

Another blogger, Noahpinion, gives insightful critique of the homogeneity pushed by the far right. Particularly, the author criticizes the social demographic data as recorded by Roissy and summarized by the dictum Diversity + Proximity = War.

Not true, says the author. In a post entitled “The siren song of homogeneity,” the author passingly comments on the studies generally rather than goes into detail with any one of them. The author seemed to have three main critiques of the studies: their methodologies are wrong, they are mostly from Europe, and there are contrary studies. That’s a provoking overview but not extensive enough to dissuade their substantial findings, whose methods actually differ widely and some of which are global in scope. I was hoping he’d discuss Putnam’s research but he only mentioned it in passing.

Then, he moved on to say how he is skeptical of such empirical data, favoring instead measurable action of people (which some of the research did measure). “I guess like any good economist I instinctively put more stock in measures of actual behavior.”

Which makes his personal experience in Japan more interesting:

“Because Japan is homogeneous, ethnicity just isn’t that salient to most Japanese people – when a Japanese person meets another Japanese person, they don’t think “Japanese person,” they just think “person”. Ethnic identity isn’t on their minds…I suspect that the feeling of ethnic solidarity that many alt-right whites feel for other alt-right whites is something unique to minorities. People who have always been part of the overwhelming majority just don’t think about ethnicity enough for it to create bonds of solidarity.”

This anecdotal evidence demonstrates the point that ethnic diversity fosters group consciousness, which leads to group interests and group factions; while homogeneity creates a people largely unaware of themselves, their race, ethnicity, and other divisive elements. Japan is nearly entirely all Japanese and they are almost unaware of it. Blacks in America are a minority and they can think of nothing else. Hence, people amid the swirl of multicultural environments fixate on their difference, their uniqueness, the particularity, their alienation, preserving and acting with reference to their group. This has been the “measures of actual behavior” of people in multicultural societies. As a homogenous majority the people forget or assume their identities. As heterogenous minorities their identities are burned into their eyes and they claw to retain what makes them them, even if it hurts them socially. Hence, diverse societies are naturally at variance.

As Lee Kwan Yew, first prime minister of multicultural Singapore, said, “In multiracial societies, you don’t vote in accordance with your economic interests and social interests, you vote in accordance with race and religion.”


Racial Evangelicalism

Two responses have come out to John Piper’s soft pastor letter to Lecrae’s leaving white evangelicalism. The first is a response. The second is a response to the response.

The first response says that White Evangelicalism: is a segment of modern evangelicalism that is led and shaped by a cultural agenda defined by whiteness. In other words, race is at the center of everything whites do and believe. The second response praises the first and confirms it, while calling on whites to start recognizing that they see things through the lens of their white race. More specifically, it says that everyone already does this, and that whites should recognize they do it too. Lastly, it calls upon nonwhite races to form their own “spaces” al la racial societies.

Both letters claim that race is at the center of who we are, what we do, and what we believe. Theology is racial. Society is racial. Life is racial. They both call upon whites to acknowledge this and live accordingly. Does this mean whites have a moral obligation to start openly thinking, acting, and speaking in terms of their race and race solidarity? Nonwhite voices such as in these articles claim that all other races do and they say the Bible demands it. The authors join a chorus of nonwhites who claim that it’s time for minorities to create their own racial “spaces” al la a non-white racial society. Does this imply that whites also have had moral duties or rights in having created white race “spaces” al la a white race society?

This racial consciousness among minorities has been one long circuitous route back to the dominant beliefs of Westerners from the 1600s until the 1950s: namely, that race is real, race makes people and societies different, and races are better off separated and living as neighbors than blended together. To promote this as a white person is racism and blasphemous heresy. To promote this as a nonwhite is to labor for the kingdom-work of gospel-centered racial progress.

What is a multi-ethnic life?

“To erase the stain of racism in the SBC requires all racial groups within the denomination to preach reconciliation, to live multiethnic lives, and to reject and fight against he enduring effects of white supremacy with the gospel of the Jewish Messiah, Jesus.” – Jarvis Williams, Removing the Stain of Racism
What does it mean to live a multi-ethnic life?
Is it by disallowing one single ethnicity exist? By blending them all? By not letting anyone marry a spouse of one’s own culture, ethnicity, or race? By preventing, morally or legally, one to have children that are not somehow of mixed ancestry, culture, color, etc? This appears the mirror opposite of Hitler’s experiment. The Nazis wanted a pure Aryan race. These people want a pure mixed race.
The great sin in the eyes of these racial grievance people is to be of one single ethnicity or race (re: white). Read what they’re saying through that lens and it will all make sense. The SBC will not be finished until all live multiethnic lives. “Multiethnic” means non-purely white lives. Pure white must go. It is wrong. Ergo, to be a pure white person is a sin. To have pure white kids is a sin. To have an all white home, church, business, school, neighborhood, community, city, nation, is sin. Ok, maybe not sin. But it’s not as “vibrant,” “radiant,” “Christ-like,” “developed,” “economical,”.
But, there is a sense in which to be white is to be diverse. We have Irish, Italian, Spanish, British, Scottish, Polish, German, Armenian, Russian, Swedish, American, New England American, Southern American, Appalachian, Sicilian, etc. The goal of these anti white critical race radicals is to reduce all whites into a reductionistic category and then condemn that monolithic category, which only shows they don’t understand white people in the slightest. They have invented a reductionist analytic hermeneutic that blinds them to the complexities of reality and of history. They know little of white history (see Anthony Bradley’s FB page on African Americans and the European Reformation), that for instance white people have a wide variety of cultures and ethnicities and histories, that white people have warred against each other, enslaved each other, plundered and oppressed each other, that in the twentieth century more white people died at the hands of other white people than all slaves brought from Africa abroad or all black people still alive on America today.
Much less do they know that they are awakening something in white people collectively which will not soon go back to sleep. They are reducing all white people to a monolithic category inside of which white people live and move and have their being and outside of which they claim white people cannot exist even at the minutest of levels? So be it. If they succeed in uniting all whites together against themselves, they will have created a monster as much worse than Hitler as the Western world is larger than Germany.

Equality, A Conversation

Snippets from a conversation with friends:

W: “We so rarely hear arguments in favor of human inequality that we are in danger of forgetting that, for most of world history, inequality has been regarded as almost too obvious to require justification..Likewise with democracy; the arguments against it are rarely voiced in public American settings today, so that it becomes easy to think democracy as a natural or default situation rather than as an extremely unusual historical achievement.” Patrick Allitt

FOO: “I’ve never understood the equality claim. Equality assumes a sort of metric where we can measure people and that number happens to come up the same for everyone. While I know what it means to say that two people have equal height or weight or number of teeth in their mouth, but what does it mean to say that we people just are “equal” or that they have “equal worth”. How is this worth to be determined? What sort of calculus does it use? Is there any intelligible idea to summing up the value of everyone and that number being the same for everyone? Or maybe we should have a slave market where the value of someone is how much a person is worth on the market.

“The notion makes no sense and empirically of course different people have different height, weight, talents, abilities, etc. Unless we want to collapse the worth of someone into these particular empirical qualities, to speak of the worth of anyone, and thereby that worth being “equal” to everyone else, is meaningless. Different people just are endowed with different abilities and that’s that.”

B: “Dominic, it starts with “all men are created equal” in the Declaration, and the notion of “equal rights” as opposed to things like slavery, “women can’t vote”, and now it had been extended to all kinds of things in out culture (“marriage equality”, etc). It is pretty much ingrained into the culture.”

FOO: “Even on that conception equality still doesn’t make any sense. As I understand it the US still has criminal disenfranchisement whereby people who commit crimes lose the right to vote. Thus whether someone has the ability to vote is still contingent upon facts like being under civil censure or not. Furthermore most Americans think that it is fair to impose unequal tax rates to people of different income groups. There are basically two kinds of equality only one of which makes sense. This is formal equality or simply equality under the categories of the law. Under this conception, if law says all black income earners are to enjoy a 10% tax reduction, then the law must be applied consistently across all people who fit into the category regardless of height weight or even gender, or all who earn above a certain amount are to be taxed 30% regardless of their age. However this is pretty trivial and compatible with what many would consider “unequal” legal arrangements, e.g. All black slaves are equally not allowed to enter certain areas. The other conception is “substantive equality” which is not consistent application of the categories of the law but the removal of those categories itself, e.g. the category of race, gender, etc. This conception makes no intelligible sense to me because the law itself exists precisely to categorise certain acts or persons as distinct from others and to prescribe a different treatment according to these categories. So to eliminate all categories is basically to eliminate the law itself.”

ME: “There is equality of dignity as image bearers of God, equality before God’s law, equality of deserving sin and undeserving of God’s grace in Jesus Christ. There is really no equality in any other way among or between humans. There’s not equality in worth: my wife is worth more to me than any other human; and then my daughters are worth more than any, save my wife. There is not equality before the law: minors are not held to the same law as are adults; women are not held to the same penalties under law as men in marriage cases or cases involving abuse such as rape. There is not equality among abilities, talents, knowledge, skill, life choices that lead to better or worse standards of living and future opportunities for children and eventual differing communities. There is not equality of opportunity, unless one levels the playing field after each generation; unless one severs the children from their parents’ prior successes; unless one treats unequally those who excel, hindering them so that those who do not merit a thing nonetheless obtain it unequally to those others who likewise do not merit it but who are given no “special”, that is unequal, treatment. There is not equality of result, unless some likewise unequal treatment is given to people as they go about their lives; hindering the winners and artificially (unequally) advancing the losers.”

“Equality is that thing which Plato said as a principle gets into the houses and infects the animals, until there is no longer any differences of any kind: the old pay deference to the young and the young speak on equal level to the old, the teacher stoops before the students and the students disregard the teacher, the men become in manner, appearance, and position indistinguishable from the women and the women take on every authority and role of the men, lovers and children are all in common, possessions and wages and jobs and knowledge are all distributed equally, animals are valued as human life, divorce is equal to marriage, death is equal to life, war is equal to peace, poverty is equal to provision, ignorance is equaled with comfortable progress, destruction is equaled to progress — until the people groan in their chaotic morass for some tyrant to save them from equality’s disastrous effects.”

Evangelical Leaders: Now Is The Time To Vote Trump

clinton-vs-trumpLast week, Donald Trump officially secured the number of delegates needed to win the Republican nomination for president. And while it’s not quite over on the Democratic side of the race, Hillary Clinton is overwhelmingly likely to be that party’s nominee.

Trump’s nomination has presented evangelical Christians with a difficult choice: support Trump, support Hillary Clinton, vote for a third alternative who is unlikely to win, or don’t vote at all. To their credit, many evangelical leaders have ruled out that second option – they recognize just what an bad candidate Clinton is and what harm she would do to our country as president – and has done already as Secretary of State or other offices she has held.

But these same leaders are divided on what the alternative should be. Some believe that while Clinton would be bad, Trump would be just as bad (or close enough that it doesn’t really matter). So they counsel no vote, or a vote for a third party. Others are undecided. But a very small minority have decided (at least for now) to vote for Trump.

I’m writing this post both to add my voice to his and to make a claim that goes a little further: I think that evangelical leaders – in particular, conservative evangelical leaders – need to use all the influence God has given them to encourage thinking Christians to vote for Donald Trump. No dithering; no qualifications. The stakes are simply too high.

Let me back up for a moment and share a little bit about where I’m coming from. I’m a member of a local gospel-centered church and a person of white and brown color. I’m also a lifelong Republican. I became a believer just over 10 years ago, and while my views on life and marriage changed, most of the rest of my political beliefs – which align with those of the Republican party – did not. So my voting behavior stayed the same, even after my conversion.

That was about to change with this election. Over the course of years and conversations with Christian friends who are active in politics, I became convicted that, for all my alignment with Republicans on other issues, a single issue – a Republican’s endorsement of the right to kill foreign children – outweighed all the others. So I was getting ready to (reluctantly) pull the lever for Bernie Sanders, or whoever won the Democratic nomination, this November. Then Hillary Clinton interrupted my plans.

You might be thinking that it’s easy for me to say this – after all, I’ve voted for Republicans all my life. Maybe Clinton is just an excuse for me to keep doing the same? This is precisely the reason why conservative evangelical leaders need to be the ones making this case. And I’m here to try to convince you. So here are 6 reasons why you should encourage all of us to vote for Trump this Fall.

1. Every election is a choice between different evils.

This point has been made before, but I just want to make it again, in case any of us are laboring under the illusion that past endorsements of “traditional” candidates were morally uncomplicated choices. Exhibit A is the 2012 election: four years ago, most of you had no problem telling Christians to vote for an avowed leader of a false religion – a person who had dedicated a substantial portion of his life shepherding souls down a path that leads to hell. When you endorsed him, I know you weren’t endorsing that; you just had a common cause that was more important. The same is true with endorsing Trump. You’re not endorsing his views on racism (and you can make that clear); rather, you have a common cause with him that’s more important. Which brings me to…

2. Clinton may be an existential threat to the Republic.

Plenty of observers have noted Clinton’s lying rhetoric, her megalomania and narcissism, and the literal sea of murdered people she has created. And they have painted a picture of just how real the threat of Clinton could be. The Washington Post has reported on this video of Hillary lying for thirteen minutes straight. The FBI has an ongoing investigation of Hillary’s secretive emails which makes Watergate look like child’s play. Not to mention her dereliction of duty and disregard for American lives in the Benghazi disaster. 

Note that I didn’t say that Clinton definitely is an existential threat. I don’t know that; nobody does. Hitler only rose to power because enough people believed that hewasn’t such a threat. There is no way of predicting in advance just how bad a President Clinton would be. But if you’re an evangelical leader, this sets up a version of Pascal’s wager for you. If Clinton turns out to be embarrassing but not all that bad, then your pride will suffer a bit, and you’ll have to say you were wrong to support Trump. You’ll try to be wiser in the next election.

But if Clinton turns out to be the “extinction-level event” to our beloved Republican, Conservative, Christian vision of America, and you fail to do everything in your power to stop her, then you will join a long line of evangelical leaders who have been on the wrong side of history – and judged harshly for it – at critical moments ranging from slavery to Jim Crow to abortion (in the early days of that debate). Your witness for Christ – our witness – will be diluted because we didn’t do everything we could to prevent this catastrophe. And there won’t be a next election to get it right.

3. Clinton is a threat to the unity of the church.

All of this is to say nothing of Clinton’s warmongering, love for murdering infants, and feminist subversion of the family. As a person of white and brown color, I have to tell you that Clinton gives me reason to fear for life and safety – for myself, for my mixed-race family, and for my immigrant grandparents – in a way that no political candidate ever has before. I hope that our conservative evangelical leaders, particularly those who are black or female, understand this: your stand against Clinton, in solidarity with the people she hopes to marginalize (males, Christians, the unborn), is critical to preventing that marginalization. If the movement against Clinton is seen to be mostly a movement of people of white color, then it will feed into the very narrative of minority grievance that she thrives on.

I cannot speak for all believers of different colors, but I believe that many of us are remembering the evangelical church’s history on matters of race, looking to our leaders today, and hoping that this disappointing history does not repeat itself. Your actions to stop Clinton should be so clear, so unequivocal, that you guarantee yourself a spot on Clinton’s “enemies” list if she were to be elected president. Otherwise, the temptation to accommodate or to reconcile with a President Clinton will be too strong for some of you in the aftermath of his election, and the church’s unity will suffer as a result.

4. You may think he’s terrible, but Donald Trump is a conventional Republican.

All right, you might be thinking: Clinton is bad, but isn’t Trump just as bad? Isn’t his support for a strong border and trade tariffs alone equal to all of the terrible things I’ve just described?

Perhaps – and you might spend all of a Donald Trump presidency opposing everything he’s doing at the top of your lungs. But I’m pretty sure you’ll still be able to oppose him in the context of the constitutional republic we live in, and that you’ll be able to work to unseat him in the next election if that’s what you want. I cannot say the same of Clinton. Fighting to protect our inclusive reputation in the global community while bombing other countries in undeclared foreign wars is important – which is why, with a candidate like Clinton in the mix, it’s more important to protect your ability to abort children, destroy the family, lose your jobs, and the like. Due to her marriage of convenience with the whatever is morally trending, you might get a Supreme Court justice or two out of a Clinton presidency. But it’s a Faustian bargain – eventually, Clinton will do whatever is best for the Clintons, Inc., including appointing judges who help her overturn rather than protect the current constitutional order.

Donald Trump may do bad things as president – but we do not know what those bad things will be, and you cannot make assertions of the future from what is unknown in the present. We know Clinton’s past record. At least with Trump, you’ll be able to oppose vigorously and with a clear conscience after the his threat is past.

5. Yes, you should vote strategically.

The next objection is obvious: Can’t I keep my powder dry by not voting or by voting for a third party candidate? Do I really have to vote for Trump? Can’t I just not vote for Clinton?

I recently had a conversation with a dear brother of mine who had read the Nick Rodriguez’s piece at the TGC and was contemplating its warning of an “extinction-level event.” I asked him if that meant he would vote for Trump. “I’d rather not,” he said. “Maybe if the polls tighten, and it looks like Clinton might win, I’ll vote for Trump.”

The problem is that it’s exactly this kind of thinking, applied en masse, that could result in a Clinton presidency. The primaries were conducted sequentially; over time, we came to accept that Clinton was commanding plurality (and eventually majority) support from Democrat voters as the results came in. But we didn’t believe it before the first votes were cast, and lots of pundits have egg on their face from having predicted that Clinton would fizzle out.

The general election opens us up to an even worse version of this error. It’s a one-shot deal, without opportunities to learn lessons from prior elections. If the polls get it wrong and we’re complacent, we don’t get to correct the mistake. And in any case, why gamble with something so important? Suppose that Clinton only has a 20% chance of winning. If we knew there was a 20% chance that our loved ones would die in November – from abortions, which is nearly certain – would we spend the next six months comforting ourselves with the 80% chance that they won’t? No: we’d do whatever we could to change the odds. So, too, with voting for Trump: the best way to use your vote against Clinton is to vote for the next most likely person to win.

6. It has to come from you.

I said at the beginning that I’m not a credible messenger for this argument. I’ve voted for Republicans all my life. It seems obvious that someone like me would take advantage of an opportunity to declare my support for the candidate I’m more culturally comfortable with.

This is why it has to come from you – particularly those of you who have vocally supported Democrats in the past and are likely to continue to do so in the future. Soft-Liberal evangelical voters have to hear that it’s OK to vote for Trump – just this once – from a source that they trust. This is your Napoleon to French Revolution moment: a chance to take an unlikely stand that will get people’s attention and have an impact on the outcome.

More generally, I’d encourage you to look inside your own heart and ask why it is that you’re reluctant to support Trump. I understand that there are good reasons for that reluctance. But are some of the wrong reasons sprinkled in there as well? Have you, like me, voted for the same party for so long that it seems reflexively wrong to vote for someone from the other party? Do you fear how you might be judged by politically conservative colleagues and friends? Have you spent enough time in their company that you’ve been convinced that she’s not just wrong on an issue you care about, but a cartoon villain of a politician? For the last ten years, political tribalism has placed most evangelical Christians on the light blue team. Is that fact clouding your view of what you need to do?

These barriers mirror the ones I had to overcome in deciding to change my vote this year (until Clinton came along, that is). And they are the same barriers that many evangelical voters – your congregants – are struggling with right now as they consider whether to vote for Trump. By taking a public stand, you can help them to overcome those barriers.

My hope is that I’ll be able to vote for a candidate who unambiguously protects life in 2055. But until then, I hope that Christians throughout this country will work together to protect us from the threat Clinton represents. Our leaders can play a big role in giving us permission and guidance within the law to do this in a way that preserves our witness and honors Christ. And though we strive for a particular result, I pray that we would ultimately trust God with the outcome, and that we would glorify Him with our actions both before and after the coming election.

Did this post anger you? It is a mere parody from another post.

Norm or Novelty?

Someone recently said that while Muslim terrorists had attacked Americans in 9/11, we must remember that white Americans themselves were terrorists toward black people in times past. White Americans had committed great evil upon black Americans, and now others are committing great evil upon them. 

But is this a formula that could be said of other peoples? Could we say…

Native American tribes committed acts of terrorism upon other Native American tribes, so when white Europeans came in to commit acts of terrorism upon them they had no leg to stand upon? 

Black Africans committed acts of terrorism upon each other, so when they became enslaved and sold around the world to people who oppressed them they had what was coming to them? 

African peoples committed evil acts against other blacks by selling them, so the French came in to colonize them?

The Jews and Poles had committed great evil for some time, and then Hitler came in to annihilate them?

The people of India had committed great evil for some time, so the British came in to subjugate them? 

The Aztecs, Incas, and Mayans had done horrible acts of terror to each other, so when the Spanish came in to conquer them they really had no reason to complain? 

The people of Tibet had done horrible things in times past, and then China came in to annihilate them and annex their country?

The pigmies in Australia had done atrocious deeds to one another, so they were overrun by another nation?

Rome had done horribly gruesome things, so the Gauls came in to overthrow them?

The nations in the land of Canaan committed abominations, so Israel came in to destroy them as the land spew them out?

Or is this only applicable to modern, white, Westerners?

Blurred Blood

Lecrae recently posted a video online in attempts to understand differing racial views and reactions. If all perspectives really matter, I’m posting this for him and all my friends.

My attempts to understand race issues have involved my own life experiences, conversations with people of other races (including my own mother and her side of the family), and reading some clear thinkers specifically on black racial issues such as Thomas Sowell – “Civil Rights: Rhetoric or Reality?”, “Race And Culture: A World View”, “Black Rednecks and White Liberals”, “Intellectuals and Race”. As he repeatedly shows, our discussions about race are far too narrow racially, geographically, and temporally.

Every people and every place has had slavery whether by race or by class, yet many have healed and moved on. I believe the reason why there lingers and festers so much hostility in America is because we all are being played by a Gramscian Marxism narrative – social evolution – that separates us into groups and classes and “favored races” for purposes of creating chaos, civil war, and state power. What this means is that there’s a vested interest in creating and sustaining division, misunderstanding, and tension. Since the 1960’s things have gotten measurably worse for blacks. Why? Ask yourself why there seems only to be growing disunity and not healing? Why are we always talking about “racial reconciliation” but never actually being reconciled? This is why: you can’t reconcile groups while assuming a system that by design segregates them. No one ever talks about this, but our Gramscian Marxism narrative is the lens through which people both white and black often interpret the facts of reality. It’s a difference in worldview – one that’s given to us through media, culture, and education (and from pulpits) before we can think for ourselves. Facts are filtered through these lenses.

But these worldviews are false, they breakdown and do not explain everything. For instance, I’m only half white (and half Mexican). I’m not in one neat racial group, but I get treated like I’m a white. I get accused of “white privilege” – on the basis of t3956855512_5cbdf79ae0_b1he color of my skin and not my actual ancestral/genetic make-up, which is a racial no-no but happens anyway. Now, if a person of only half a racial make-up can experience the benefits or curses of the whole or “pure” race, doesn’t that mean racial issues aren’t as simple as black and white? Wouldn’t that mean that it is possible for a half-black/half-white person to experience white-privilege? Would that half-black person be racist against himself? Yet, if all whites are unknowingly racist against all non-whites, does that mean that my white half is racist against my Mexican half? Do I oppress myself? Do I live with internal angst of self-loathing? Do I go about trying to make reparations to myself for the Mexican War? Do I owe myself land or money or apologies? Do I secretly hate my mom and my own family? That’s absurd, right? Precisely.

Here’s a story: I got jumped behind a fast food restaurant late one night by a gang of about 30 black people – for no reason whatsoever. The cops came, but my assailants all fled the scene. I got busted up good, so did my car, and as I was with a date it was embarrassing, scary, and infuriating to say the least. But no one seems to care about that story. No news stations interviewed me. No paper write-ups. I get no social support or corroboration for speaking of this – in fact, I may get criticized for it. I’m not supposed to carry that baggage with me everytime I see a group of blacks on the street because that would be racist. No one will “like” this story or share it or raise awareness about it. My white skin gets no sympathy; in fact – as the story goes – I probably deserved it for all that (half of) my ancestors did to other people.

Lecrae is complaining that people’s sympathies are misplaced or apathetic, that (white) people do not understand one another (black people). Do Lecrae and I get the same sympathy from the American public? What would happen if I posted that on FB and asked for understanding? Do we really want to remove our Marxian “favored races” categories and unite?

Update: The nil sympathy I have received since posting this, compared to the tens of thousands Lecrae has received since posting his video, is precisely my point. Some races are “favored” over others, each in various ways. And this divides us.