This post is in response to a recent one by Vox Day where he answered a question I had asked:
To start with a brief diversion, someone saying you're any type of intelligent is not the type of compliment that means a lot. Words are cheap, flattery is easy.
The compliment is in the implicit message of "you were worth the time to respond to at all". In a sea of screaming voices all demanding validation and attention, getting a response from someone who has better things to do is special, and the message they send in response should be granted sufficient weight.
So to the task at hand: between the two options which would I now choose?
What I took from Vox's response is that the identity that America, or really any peoples, must adopt needs to satisfy three specific criteria:
1) It must be clearly defined.
2) It must be enforceable.
3) It must be enforced.
If it cannot be defined clearly, then it is weak and will be destroyed by stronger identities with greater clarity. Without clear definition, the capability to be enforced becomes a matter of subjectivity as competing interpretations of the identity fight each other as often as with those who hold different identities. An identity divided cannot stand.
If it is not enforceable, it is likely based more on fantasy than reality, based on what we want and not what is practical, and denial of reality is not progress. If it's not enforceable, this doesn't mean something won't still be enforced, but it will be an interpretation of the fantasy which wasn't defined clearly, and the enforcement will face resistance from different interpretations as well as other identities.
If it is not enforced, then even if clearly defined and capable of being enforced, it won't matter. Those who hold the identity must have the resolve and perseverance to enforce it, whatever it is. Having an idea is great, but being unwilling or unable to manifest that idea makes the idea moot. Talk, and as before words, are cheap. Actions speak louder, and our actions in this country have told a tale of suicidal surrender for decades.
On these criteria, the option of a Christian theocracy is woefully inadequate compared to racial nationalism. For starters, as was posited in my original question, faith can be faked. If a Department of Inquisition is established, all they'll be able to measure are the fruits of an individual and then try to make judgment calls based on what information could be gathered about the context, but even secular moralists can do that through our existing court systems. Putting a coat of Christian paint on it won't alleviate any of the flaws or shortcomings of that system.
The association with Christianity and the political system being proposed by so many Christians isn't really "Christian", because the Bible just doesn't care about that stuff anymore. It's stuff that Christians can do, but that doesn't mean it's Christianity, because Christians are still capable of sin and rebellion against God, which is obviously not Christianity. Since we don't yet have a truly impartial judge for this side of life, a Christian theocracy fails the first two criteria.
Now, it could satisfy the third, in that some interpretation of Christianity could be enforced, in that passing laws which directly reflect a specific command or interpretation could be done, but that's just politics, which is well downstream from identity. It, again, wouldn't actually be Christianity, and just another distraction from actual Christianity.
I say this because we already have an issue with most people in the country having no idea what Christianity actually is, just looking at Churchianity as inspired by the works of Peter Drucker. Mega churches which teach all various forms of heresy, demand penance through virtue-signalling, and spend millions of dollars on production value so that people are entertained enough to spend their Sunday morning in their pews.
I would rather Christianity be stripped from the places where it was thrust erroneously than to continue see it being used as a token unifier while people ignore the tenets. From a fantasy standpoint, the idea of a Christian theocracy sounds appealing, but the practical reality is that humans can't do that without God, and few people are ever actually finding God.
“Enter by the narrow gate; for wide is the gate and broad is the way that leads to destruction, and there are many who go in by it. Because narrow is the gate and difficult is the way which leads to life, and there are few who find it. - Matthew 7:13-14 (NKJV)
“Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father in heaven. Many
will say to Me in that day, ‘Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in Your
name, cast out demons in Your name, and done many wonders in Your
name?’ And then I will declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness!’ - Matthew 7:21-23 (NKJV)
In alignment with reality, Christianity has no practical value in trying to run a country where even the adherents can fail to follow the tenets of the belief system, and a faked faith is hard to spot when folks can muster up their will sufficient to publicly display good fruits for short periods of time.
As an example, there was a man I knew at a former church who was well spoken of, giving of his time, big family, superficially a "good Christian" by all appearances. He also recently confessed "guilty" to molesting his daughters and will be in jail the rest of his life.
Sin cannot be hidden forever, especially not from God, but that doesn't mean people don't try to hide it from each other as long as they can.
These are problems which racial nationalism simply does not have. To start, it's inherently impersonal, despite often being portrayed otherwise. You didn't choose it, you didn't earn or discover it, you can't win or lose it, and through scientific research we're well past the point where anyone can fake it, and we don't need tribbles to help us out either.
As such, we can very clearly define what racial nationalism means for a specific nation, and we can enforce the composition of that nation based on race. It is, because of its uncaring and impersonal nature, the "most fair" way to segregate people in the aggregate, specifically because nobody anywhere really has a say in it. We're all equally incapable of doing anything about race other than identify and embrace it.
And while I am greatly vexed and frustrated by Churchians who undermine the faith, their motivations aren't rooted in undermining the safety, welfare, and legacy of my family.
Islamists' are, La Raza's are, Black Lives Matter's are, and not coincidentally all three identities are largely held by people who do not share my racial makeup. If it's "them or me", I'll pick me every time. Jesus already died to save them, and my death won't save anyone. While the intellectual may point to the crudity of such an impersonal distinction, only the deluded will persistently favor an impractical fantasy over a practical reality, and all the alternatives are worse.
Top top all of this off, racial based nationalism only requires racial distinction, not blanket supremacy. Each race has its ups and downs. Each race has the ability to make changes in behavior, but really even there that's just adjusting what the race does, not changing what or who the race is.
Nations which have alignment on the secondary ideologies can still form alliances and have relationships. They can share in economic and social aspects, while still maintaining the necessary segregation required to allow those other facts of a nation's culture to manifest in the first place.
If everyone is worried about just surviving the day, asserting their racial identity's right to exist, then nobody is going to care to discuss the economics of underwater basket weaving. For the sake of the underwater basket weavers, and for the prosperity and diversity of the races that currently exist on our planet, we need to ensure that each race has a place of its own, to have and to hold, for better or worse, in sickness and in health, till death do they part.
To facilitate that, these specific philosophic principles are what will be required going forward:
If we don't make the hard decisions now, someone else who hates or envies us will easily make the decisions for us later.