Basic to pagan familism is a theology of racism. Because the pagan family is seen by its defenders as a blood covenant, the question of inter-racial marriage becomes decisive. ~ Gary North
Fight Familism
by Rev. Jack O’Kobian
Modern Christians have made great strides against racism. But much more needs to be done if we are to be true servants of Equality.
Now we must confront a form of racism that most people don’t even recognize as such. This is the sin of familism, the preference for one’s children over other children. Admittedly this seems natural, but in the fallen world most sins seem natural. Only as we follow the spiritual truth of Equality can we rise above this sinful material world.
Do you doubt that familism is racism? Consider how racists often justify their hate by saying that it’s really no different from preferring one’s child. And consider how familists often use such terms as “my flesh and blood.” The similarity to the Nazi’s “blood and soil” is obvious. Only a bigot would disagree.
In the words of no less than Martin Luther King, the only basis for judging another human being is the “content of character.” Thus if a “father” prefers his “son” to another child who is morally superior to that “son,” he is clearly a bigot because he values flesh more than morality. Such a “father” clearly views his “family”—physical traits, genes and all—as a miniature Master Race.
While it is true that the Old Testament affirms family lineage and says “honor thy father and thy mother,” the law of the Old Testament no longer applies because now, under the New Testament, we are under grace instead of law. Jesus said, “call no man your father.” Grace is spirit and abolishes physical distinctions.
Throughout history we can see the evil caused by familism, wars of dynasty, family feuds, jealousy, and favoritism. Blood ties lead to bloodshed. It is the shame of the Church that Marxists have long understood the evils of familism better than Christians and have worked to attack this and other sins against Equality. Indeed, it was the Marxist Leon Trotsky who invented the term “racism.”
To fight familism, the Church must set the long-range goal of raising all children in common. In the words of Hillary Clinton, “It takes a village to raise a child.” As a preliminary step to that goal, Christian parents should make a practice of swapping their newborns with other “families.”
Some “mothers,” of course, will object, and they will play on the sentiments of a mother holding her infant child. Nevertheless, we must cut through this sentiment and understand the sin that motivates it. The extent to which a “mother” focuses on her child is the extent to which she tunes out other children—and that is hate.
Although abortion is a bad thing, it may be serving what is ultimately a good purpose. When a woman has the child in her womb killed, it desensitizes her to warmth and favoritism toward children of her own, and thereby opens her heart to impartial feeling toward all children. Gay marriage also may have a beneficial side by undercutting the prestige of familism.
We should never fail to denounce familism whenever we encounter it, even in tough cases. For example, if a couple has just lost its child in an accident, the moral response is to withhold sympathy for their grief. Tell the couple to “get over it” because there are plenty of living children around for them to love, many with a “content of character” superior to that of “their” deceased child.
Admittedly, the path to True Equality will not be easy, but it is the only way we can purge the sin of earth with the spirit of heaven. One day this love will trample out the vineyards of hate.
What church are you a pastor in?
It is biblically sound to place one’s immediate family above all others.
Timothy 5:8
“But if any provide not for his own, and specially for those of his own house, he hath denied the faith, and is worse than an infidel.”
This can’t be someone’s serious thoughts and attempt at reasoning. This can’t be real. Can it????
Nope, just irony.
The name “Jack O’Kobian” is meant to sound like “Jacobin.”
The Gary North quote is real though. Only pagans believe in blood covenants, says the Jacobin North.
“Thou shalt NOT commit murder”…And yet you claim abortion may actually be BENEFITIAL?! ALL SIN seperates us from God! ALL SIN carries the penalty of DEATH! Please diligently STUDY the WORD of God & BE CAREFUL what you teach! God will not hold you guilt-less for their sins!
Susan, your heart is telling you right. Anyone who would promote the attitudes portrayed in this satirical article should be eternally condemned.
Additionally, I wanted to interact with Gary North’s quote, but the link appears broken. I did a little Googlin’ and found the following:
Christian acknowledge that the church alone will survive as an institution in eternity. Both the family, and historical governments will disappear in eternity. Non-Christians have no biblical doctrine of eternity, so they deny this unique status to the church. This is why both familism (patriarchal clans) and statism have been the chief rivals of the church in history.
http://www.garynorth.com/freebooks/docs/a_pdfs/newslet/cr/9003.pdf
It is ironic to me that Gary blames non-Christian philosophy for creating “familism” (read: kinship loyalty) and “statism” (read: anything not in keeping with the Austrian school of economics), which allegedly have plagued the church for centuries, when about 90% of the material on his website comes from the minds of godless libertarian philosophers.
As usual Y2K Gary gets it wrong. Nations (ethnic peoples) will exist in eternity. See Revelation 22:2.
Good point Luther. But give his theonomic-libertarianism hybrid politics, North would see a nation as nothing more than any people within a given geography who submit to a covenantal arrangement–albeit one where freedom is emphasized and the spontaneous market is protected. In a word, a nation is free citizens.
But even the word nation belies such ignorance. As one writer has pointed out:
Nationality…
(parallel word) nativity
(extract root) natal
(translate) birth
(infer meaning) heredity
(reword meaning) bloodline
(reword meaning) race
“The point, however, is that citizenship is not nationality. Race is nationality. Citizenship is a legal thing. Nationality is a biological thing.”
In “Theonomy: An Informed Response” starting on page 261, Gary North lays out why the whole “seed mixing” concept has been abrogated.
He says there are three options:
(1) They are no longer binding because of a change in covenantal administration
(2) The link between corporate obedience and corporate blessings no longer applies in the NT,
(3) these laws still apply and a “horrendous covenantal judgment” is coming.
He concludes, and argues for (1)…I think any South African white would consider (3) at this point.
That’s very interesting, Shotgun. I would love to know what is his basis for arguing the first point. Is this also on the freebooks site? I take it that he’s associating it with the ceremonial law, which is obsolete.
The problem here for North is that ceremonial laws were only abrogated because they were fulfilled in the cross and empty tomb. How has Lev. 19:19 been fufilled? It hasn’t. It was important then and is still important today. As Matthew Henry wrote, “We must acquiesce in the order of nature God hath established, believing that is best and sufficient, and not covet monsters… As what God has joined we must not separate, so what he has separated we must not join.”
As Ehud wrote recently, “The laws regarding cattle haven’t chiefly to do with cattle, but with human relations.” Our forefathers were such stalwart and judicious men because they were all farmers. Farming teaches a man to deal with frustration. To be close to nature is to be closer to an understanding of God’s created order. The thought of mixing races revolted our fathers in part because they saw nothing of the kind in nature. Race-mixing is quite appealing to Negroes because they can’t recognize their own fathers in a line-up.
Here’s another interesting fact: The very first law introduced to mankind was “everything according to its kind.”
“Race-mixing is quite appealing to Negroes because they can’t recognize their own fathers in a line-up.”
Sublime, sir.
And the point about “Everything according to its kind” being the very first law introduced to mankind is beyond sublime.
North’s work can be found online:
http://freebooks.entrewave.com/freebooks/docs/html/gnti/gnti.html
He is responding to Vern Poythress who argues that the Theonomist must come up with some consistent way to apply OT case law to contemporary settings…a task Mr. Poythress wants to show is very difficult by using Leviticus 19:19 as an example.
North and Bahnsen disagree with Rushdoony on this point.
I’d like to look into their different applications of this verse and do a write up on it this weekend.
…or, maybe you guys know of someone who has already done a similar study?
Also…the page number I supplied is from the book. The PDF page number, I think is 280.
I’d be VERY interested to read that.
What a stellar analysis of one of the ‘thornier’ points of Theonomy, one that (I am sure) the anti-theonomists didn’t even think about when they railed against Bahnsen back in the 1980′s. But this clearly points out that the kinist position is not only logical, it is eminently biblical, and valid in the new covenant, for the “Bride of Christ” must be given ‘fair, without spot or wrinkle’ to Christ at the consummation of the age. Mamzers don’t fit into that, in either dispensation. Which is why Ez. 9:2ff. is in Holy Writ to this day…
Thanks, sirs. Thanks.
I get it; however, it still made me sick to read, on here especially. My opinion is that this MAY be better distributed somewhere off of the main site.
Your Brother in Christ,
Loren
BTW,
Awesome site!
Thanks much, God Bless!
Can you please go to:
http://www.naawf.blogspot.com/
and help me educate the modern Judeo–Christian’s about Israel and our people.
You guys are the only ones smart enough!
Admin, farmers were among the first to genetically combine seeds, foods, to find a hardier more abundant grain. Not to mention that they saw all colors of dogs, cows, horses… who mixed together quite naturally… so it’s weird you would claim they never saw mixing in nature. Not to mention the types of pets people have today are all variables of wolf, wildcat, ferret, rabbit, domestic cat, domestic dog, ect. mixes… which genetically mesh quit well …so I am unsure your foundation on this “nature” idealism. I saw the reference to “everything according to its kind” however, who are you to define that “kind” as colors of people?
Nice try, Rachel. If you visit your local pet store, you’ll quickly discover that no one takes a moment’s interest in mutts unless it is to rescue the beasts from the incinerator.
Most species never have a problem with mutts. Birds of a feather flock together. In other words, birds are racists. We often buy chickens and ducks in the spring, and the little bigots and “idealists,” as you put it, always discriminate against each other.
It’s true that traits can be bred into seeds to make them more resistant to climate and pests, but you can’t get something from nothing. The trade-off is always the most important aspect: taste. This is why non-hybrid, heirloom varieties are always most highly prized. These are the “idealistic” varieties. Place not your trust in Monsanto, Rachel. It won’t save you from famine.
You asked what right I have to define “kind.” I don’t. Let’s leave that up to God. Your problem is that you are rejecting the very concept of kind. Where, in your entire comment, is the humble recognition that the law of Lev. 19:19 was given for a godly purpose? Why do you hate God’s law, Rachel?
” Not to mention that they saw all colors of dogs, cows, horses… who mixed together quite naturally… so it’s weird you would claim they never saw mixing in nature.”
If they mix together naturally, then why are these hybrids only known when humans force them together, and never found in nature?
“Not to mention the types of pets people have today are all variables of wolf, wildcat, ferret, rabbit, domestic cat, domestic dog, ect. mixes… which genetically mesh quit well”
Sorry, I don’t know where you learned biology, but rabbits do not mix well with cats. Or wolves. Which prey on them.
Did you mean within one species? Animals mostly keep to themselves, interbreeding is a human-induced phenomenon. Why do you think even a species as smart and endangered as Orcas are divided into subspecies by scientists? Why do you think these subspecies of Orca stick with their own pod, and face fierce aggression from even members of a different population? I know, it must be because of white racism.
“I saw the reference to “everything according to its kind” however, who are you to define that “kind” as colors of people?”
Where was he doing that? Let us suppose all humans are one kind, where does the Bible says this is the only distinction between men? Who are you to interfere?
Was it racist of Abraham to forbid his servant from seeking a bride for Isaac among the Caananites? Why did he demand Isaac have a wife from among his (Abraham’s) own people? Didn’t Abraham know that humans are no different from one another? That we are all one blood? How narrow-minded of him, not to heed the advice of Trotsky, inventor of the concept of racism, and a proud atheist.
Well. This is just plain crazy.
Every white man in the world is a product of interracial breeding, Scythian, Etruscan, Balkan, Phonetician, Celtic, Gaelic, Norseman, on and on. Genetic diversity is paramount to having a robust biological advantage against disease and deformity. Conservatism is an irrational resistance to the natural progression of emergent culture. Only a proponent of derelict analysis, who rationalizes with the arithmetic of exo-simplicitor…could look around at the complexity of the human experience, and reduce it to the small minded bantering that has been heard in so many tongues, around a hearth fire while the occasional hound is beaten back from steeling someones meal. This website is an indicator that you still possess the gene that gives you cognitive confidence, while ironically being deficient in any intellectual performance. Assembling a committee of words together is not the same as knowledge…I see a lot of second hand ideas being parroted here. Maybe some of you may come up with an authentic thought of your own, and join the Human race. Until then you are still swinging in the trees, shitting in your hands and throwing it about the place.
Ooga booga!
“Assembling a committee of words together is not the same as knowledge”
Good advice for yourself Enoc. I noticed that you never actually made an argument at all in your childish tirade. Emergent culture huh? Given that we’ve gone from Mozart and Beethoven to Lady Gaga I would say that the last few decades have been severely regressive. I wonder what kind of community you live in? My money’s on some sort of lily white gated community. Let us know when you plan on moving to Haiti and promoting your “emergent culture.”
Wow, judging by comments above it is very obvious to me that few people understand satire. If someone is that simple that they cannot understand the above, then the original point is beyond them.
What an interesting website. I stumbled upon by accidentally. My initial reaction to this place was confusion. It seems to be a pro-white site (?) but then I’ve actually never seen a civilized conversation occur on this topic. So I’m not sure where I’ve ended up. I have to read some more to decide just what this site is aiming for. For now I’m reading different topics and listening to the ideologies. I would describe myself as a liberal, equality for all, organic veggies kind of girl. However, information, even if initially scary, that is presented like this – I can’t help but sit quietly and read with an open mind.
Ok, enough of that. I’m a reader by nature and I love satire. The piece above did seem satirical – at times-, as in: “He CAN’T be serious.” But, for me, there was an undertone, a definite bite to the arguments used to bolster the author’s faux point of view. It all had a tinge of real conviction and was therefore, unsettling. The part about abortion, for me, actually hurt my heart to read it. By the time I got to “This can’t be serious”, the ironic humor was lost on me. That maybe way off base from the author’s truth, but the way it is written, that is how it seems to convey to most readers. Just my opinion.
Interesting – all of it. If I have questions I’m going to post in the comments.
Very funny ‘Enoc’s Blood’ a.k.a. Brian Akira of ‘shit throwing monkey’ fame. Or perhaps ‘Brian Akira’ of “What Do You Believe” is a composite of ‘shit throwing monkey fame’.
Who needs reverend Jack O’Kobian when you have Ayn Rand?
Gary North’s anti-Kinism is not motivated by leftist collectivism (which he has fought against his whole life) but by libertarian individualism – the opposites meet each other!
http://www.cfnews.org/rand.htm
“Ayn Rand, Author of Atlas Shrugged,
says Parenthood is a horror,
and “the worship of the family is racism.”"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I4JWE7mp8nI&feature=player_embedded
Here’s a good similar take on the matter. Please post and analyze this wonderful and courageous
satire:
http://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/2011/05/confessions-of-a-former-racist/#comments
To those who are shocked by this radical essay:
Listen carefully…
Can you hear it?
That’s the sound of satire whizzing over your head.
Back in serious mode:
This blog is by far the BEST collection of racialist writings I have ever encountered in any medium. This article will be an excellent tool for me to use in the fight against ignorance, and I sincerely thank the author. Best wishes to all involved in the production of this website.
I stumbled upon this site when searching for a southern perspective. I have loved everything I found here and was shocked to read this article until I stepped back and realized that some take my humor for seriousness. It sure is hard to convey subtle changes in voice inflection and facial expression in English prose. I do appreciate a good smart aleck comment though! Keep up the good work! Deo Vindice!
Do I see Mr. Anti-Familist Gary North expressing something that look very much like racial/ethnic stereotypes in here?
http://lewrockwell.com/north/north1040.html
“The present-oriented nations in the south of Europe, plus Ireland, ran up huge debts, while the bankers in the north bought the IOUs. Bankers pretended that the temporal perspective of the North – future-oriented – also governed the time perspective of the South: “Let’s party! It’s sunshine forever around here.”
They have known for approximately 500 years that, with the brief exceptions of a handful of northern Italian city-states in the 14th through 16th centuries, the southern outlook was fundamentally different from the north. It was analogous to the time perspectives dividing Canada and the United States from the nations south of the Rio Grande. The operational phrase in the South was “stiff the gringos!” Gringo investors have never caught on.”
Gary should be careful or he’ll be called a racist, talking like that.
Actually Gary North already has “racist” skeletons in his own closet, and antifa types have duly noted it:
http://www.americanfundamentalists.com/cast/north_g.html
“Furthermore, there is that other great, intolerable evil of the New England Puritans: the Puritans took land away from the “native Americans.” You know, the Indians. (Liberals have adopted the phrase “native Americans” in recent years. They never, ever say “American natives,” since this is only one step away from “American savages,” which is precisely what most of those demon-worshipping, Negro slave-holding, frequently land-polluting people were…. This was one of the great sins in American life, they say: “the stealing of Indian lands”…. That a million savages had a legitimate legal claim on the whole of North America north of Mexico is the unstated assumption of such critics. They never ask the question: From whom did the Indians of early colonial America get the land? They also never ask the even more pertinent question: Was the advent of the European in North America a righteous historical judgment of God against the Indians? On the contrary, our three authors [Noll, Hatch, Marsden] ridicule the Puritans for having suggested that the Indians were the moral and covenantal equivalent of the Canaanites (p. 33). In fact, if ever a continent of covenant-breakers deserved this attribution, the “native Americans” did. (ibid)”
But let there be credit where credit is due: North’s attacks on “familism”, although overblown, may have been motivated by sincere desire to prevent the rise of any “Christian Identity”-like heresies amongst Reformed followers of Rushdoony.
After all, North was familiar with the classic work of Fustel de Coulanges (often cited by Rushdoony) that described in detail how ancient Greco-Roman peoples began to literally worship their own forefathers as gods (Manes, Lares, Penates):
http://www.archive.org/details/ancientcityastu03coulgoog
Coulanges provided North plenty of ammunition for his claim that an un-Christian family is at least as big a threat to the faith as an un-Christian state.
(Already once in church history this pagan worship of dead people managed to seriously seduce Christians into false paths; for the cult of the saints arose in post-Constantinian era as a functional successor to the cult of Manes and Lares, the saints becoming tutelary local deities in their stead.)
Petr: You should look up Gary North’s book “Crossed Fingers.”
North claims the Presbyterian Church USA went liberal as a result of the conservatives’ refusal to support abolitionism.
See, Petr, I’ve been telling you for months not to take him so seriously. I guess you are starting to see why.
“Vox Day” (whose own theology, btw, is rotten) is giving Gary North a spanking on economic issues. Gary’s libertarian globalism has consistently accompanied his anti-racialist version of theonomy.
One cannot help thinking that Gary North’s anti-Kinism is motivated by his wish to promote colorblind “baptized libertarianism” in its stead. I do believe him to be a genuinely talented man, but this attitude is definitely his Achilles’ Heel:
http://www.voxday.blogspot.fi/2012/06/losing-it-on-free-trade.html
“The foolish utopianism of North and his kind is usefully revealed in terms such as “the invisible line known as a national border”. The significant line isn’t geography, but rather people, and when the lines are not drawn in accordance with the population, trouble begins. Germany unified despite being divided into two different states because the Germans are one nation. Yugoslavia and Czechoslovakia broke up because multiple nations were trapped together in one state. The European Union was founded on the principles North espouses and it is foundering because it refused to take those “invisible lines” into account. Nations are more than mere jurisdictions.
The observable fact is that if you scratch a free trader, you reveal the globalist underneath. And since there is no greater risk to human freedom than that posed by a central global state, they are working to bring about precisely that which they fear most. And in their myopic disregard for nations, societies, and civilization, they reveal themselves to be barbarians as well.”
Btw, North has admitted that he was a pro-capitalist even before becoming a Christian:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/north/north145.html
“I remember in the fall of 1958, when I was researching a 15-page, double-spaced term paper on Communism for a high school civics class, that the lady handed me my first copy of The Freeman. We got into a discussion about civil government. She was opposed to tax-funded education. I was amazed. She also did not trust the FBI, which she said was a national police force, which the U.S. Constitution did not authorize. I was even more amazed. It was then that I began my odyssey from anti-Communism to free market economics.
…
Mr. Roy was the best social studies teacher on campus, and by far the hardest grader. I requested to get into his class, and I became his best student that year. He was a fundamentalist and a conservative. I was not yet interested in religion, but I liked his conservatism.”
The point the author is making (and proving well) is that anti-racism is no different than anti-familism. Telling people it is “hate” to love their own race first and foremost, is the same as telling parents it is “hate” to love their own children above others. In other words, anti-racism is a delusional belief system.