Monday, June 9, 2008

Forget marriage mandate, it's the miscegenation mandate!

Here's something from the "Evangelicals can't save Western Civilization" files.

A certain segment of the evangelical community has been taken to task by some writers and bloggers for promoting a "marriage mandate," the notion that with few exceptions, everyone is obligated to get married. Usually, it is said that more women want to get married than men, and so the blame is placed on the men for not marrying the women. Boundless Line, a blog run by Focus on the Family, whose posters are all conservative evangelicals and which draws a lot of evangelical commenters, is among the publications accused of promoting this view.

I don't want to discuss the marriage mandate controversy here. The purpose of this post is to point out a Boundless post from last July on the subject of interracial dating. As you would be stunned, pleasantly surprised, or knowingly disappointed to learn, based on whether you are a leftist, a neocon, or a traditionalist, the post as well as most of the comments were strongly pro-interracial dating.

I've been familiar with the world of evangelicalism for many years now, so most of the comments did not surprise me. It is not at all shocking to hear evangelicals repeat typical liberal platitudes such as the idea that race is merely a social construct, or make snarky comments about "melanin" or one's "epidermis," falsely reducing race to mere skin color. However, there are a few real howlers in the comments section, like the statement that "a person with black skin raised in a Norwegian community is culturally Norwegian." Even that absurdity, though, is the logical conclusion of the view voiced by many other commenters that any problems encountered in interracial dating are due to culture and culture alone, culture being something completely separate from race.

I was, however, mildly surprised by a comment from a black woman who opposed interracial dating on the grounds that it would lead to the end of the black race. Some traditionalists and paleos have, rightly, said that from the white Western point of view, race-mixing should be frowned upon, because it will lead to the end of the white race. Of course, that is undesirable, but more than the end of the white race, global race-mixing will lead to the end of every race. Non-whites should be expected to care as much about the potential end of their races as we care about ours. The comment was surprising only because the liberalism most often expressed by evangelicals is of the right-liberal variety, where any concern about race is seen as invalid and bigoted, instead of the left-liberal variety, where the white race is constantly upbraided but the exaltation of other races is perfectly legitimate. To hear even a black person within an evangelical context speak so frankly about race is rare.

The point about the end of races was lost on most commenters, though, like the one who said that she grew up thinking inter-ethnic families were the norm (she meant interracial, but wrote inter-ethnic because she doesn't believe race exists.) If you think about it, for interracial families to be the norm is a self-contradictory proposition: if most people marry and have children with someone of another race, soon all races will have blended into one, and without distinct races, there cannot be interracial families. The fact that this commenter thought that something inherently impossible was the norm shows how confused most evangelicals are on these issues.

All of this brings to mind a quotation by Sam Francis I came across for the first time a month or two ago:

The real problem with the religious right is that, in the long run, its religious vehicle won’t carry it home. If it ever ended abortion, restored school prayer, outlawed sodomy and banned pornography, I suspect, most of its followers would simply declare victory and retire. But having accomplished all of that, the Christian right would have done absolutely nothing to strip the federal government of the power it has seized throughout this century, restore a proper understanding and enforcement of the Constitution and of republican government, prevent the inundation of the country by anti-Western immigrants, stop the cultural and racial dispossession of the historic American people, or resist the absorption of the American nation into a multicultural and multiracialist globalist regime.

Indeed, all evangelicals really seem to care about is abortion and same-sex marriage. They would be perfectly happy to see America become a nonwhite, third-world country, as long as abortion, pornography, same-sex marriage, and embryonic stem cell research were illegal. Which means that whoever saves America, it will not be evangelicals, at least not in their current incarnation.


John Savage said...

Great post!

Indeed, it seems like somehow the leftists are managing to steer disgruntled right-wingers into miscegenation as the only way to make a statement that one rejects the depraved culture that has become typical in mainstream America. At VA's recently, we were talking about Fred Reed, who married a Mexican and moved to Mexico, and now presumes to lecture the rest of us on how we ought to just get over our unmanly hang-ups about miscegenation, and get a real woman too.

Reed's not alone, even among paleocons. (Not all the people I'm talking about actually emigrate, but they do miscegenate.) It's hard to go to Taki's Magazine or Chronicles these days without stumbling across a commenter like the following:

"The fan base of Ali [sic] McBeal and [Sex in the City] used to be my dating pool and help explain
why I married a Mexican woman."

It's as if these folks think they are doing something bold and giving some kind of slap in the face to the Left by going and finding a foreign bride. Whereas that seems like just what the Left would have them do, knowing that their children will likely come out as proud members of La Raza, abetted by their white fathers who have given up on white culture as beyond saving.

I suppose if one just thought the white race was innately incapable of understanding the rationale for social conservatism, while other races do understand, this is what one might do. But it's not bold at all -- it's cowardly. Yet the miscegenists are usually allowed to get away with looking like the ones with a bold answer.

Hermes said...

Interesting point, John. I haven't read Fred Reed in years, since like John Derbyshire (one of his biggest fans), he's all style and no substance: concerned only with presenting himself as a curmudgeon, and not holding any serious principled views. I did know, however, that he was of the "to hell with American women" school of thought.

It's probably true that as you say, in the leftist view of things, the actions taken by such men are positive, since they result in the erosion of whiteness. However, the impression I get from the Reeds of the world is not that they want to stick it to the left, but that they want to stick it to women: they think the problem is caused solely by women and could be solved by women's returning to more feminine behavior. They ignore the problems wrought by cultural degeneracy in general; for example, last I checked Fred Reed wasn't calling for the return of the view that sex should be reserved for marriage. So I think the left would see them as anti-woman and their feminist sensibilities would be offended, cancelling out any "good" they might be doing by unmaking the white race. They might also say that these foreign women are being exploited, lured away from their true desires (and their potential to perpetuate their own, nonwhite race) by the pecuniary temptations of an American man.

I had not thought of the nonwhite objection to miscegenation as social conservatism, but I see that it makes sense. Social conservatism is necessary to preserve the traditional of human society, so if members of any race don't want themselves to die out, they need to be socially conservative. Interestingly, blacks are significantly more negative about homosexuality than whites, yet they are given a pass on their "homophobia" by the left, because they themselves are the archetypal victim group.

John Savage said...

Hermes, you wrote:

"The impression I get from the Reeds of the world is not that they want to stick it to the left, but that they want to stick it to women: they think the problem is caused solely by women and could be solved by women's returning to more feminine behavior."

That may be true. I can't read their minds, but I don't think they draw too much of a distinction between "the Left" and white women.

"I think the left would see them as anti-woman and their feminist sensibilities would be offended, cancelling out any "good" they might be doing by unmaking the white race. They might also say that these foreign women are being exploited, lured away from their true desires (and their potential to perpetuate their own, nonwhite race) by the pecuniary temptations of an American man."

Outwardly, they do say these things, and I think the naive lefties believe it. The really serious lefties, though, are primarily interested in results, much more than motives. They know that Reed-style miscegenation does not have any significant impact on the nonwhite races' ability to perpetuate themselves, while it does harm to the future of the white race. Besides, they don't expect to change the Fred Reeds of the world, so they are privately pleased to see them doing what ultimately does not benefit the political ideals that Reed professes. They see that miscegenation is actually increasing the share of people who hate the white race and its values. Feminist goals have largely been sacrificed to the more important goal of annihilating white power, as I argued here.

What's more, marriage of white men to foreign women siphons off discontent that might otherwise be caused by white women rejecting white men in favor of nonwhite and/or foreign men.

Vanishing American said...

One would think that these evangelicals who favor interracial marriage as being the Christian thing to do would stop and consider that their forefathers in general disagreed with that idea. Too many of today's Christians, rather than honoring their fathers and mothers and seeking out the old paths are willing to implicitly condemn and damn their fathers and mothers of past generations. I mean, if we think that racial solidarity and loyalty are evils and serious sins against God's law, then we are placing our our ancestors in Hades for their interpretations of Scripture.

I would think that any interpretation of Scripture that is something new, only discovered in our lifetime, has to be automatically suspect. We, even 'conservative' Christians, have in general come to devalue tradition, and how can Christians do that?
What was true and good in our grandparents' time is still true and good today, and the Bible's truth does not change with each generation. However the people who propose racial amalgamation are implying that truth DOES change -- or that our ancestors were all wrong for the last couple of millennia.

As for the Fred Reed types who are (understandably) angered by feminism, which has spread to conservative women as well as liberals, are, I think, simply rationalizing their already-existing attraction to non-white women. I'm old enough to remember before feminism triumphed that there was already a fair number of White men who favored Asian women in particular, and to a lesser extent, Hispanic, Filipina, and American Indian women. Most of the mixed-race people in those days were children of white dads with the above-mentioned women. Men in the military seemed especially prone to be drawn to Asian, Hispanic, and Indian women, long before feminism. In those days, the reverse pairings, between White women and nonwhite men, were fairly rare. It was only in the wake of the Civil Rights revolution that black male/White female pairings became more common -- and that, I think, was just because women tend to be more 'sensitive' and concerned about being considered 'racist'.

So I tend to believe that men like Reed who fancy darker-skinned women have been around for a long time, and feminism may be an excuse for them to practice their preferences. I think most men mate with women on the basis of attraction, and not for political reasons. If a man is not attracted to certain types of women, political grievances over feminism will not drive him to those women.
A male friend of mine once admitted that; it's just a primal thing, not a political choice.

Terry Morris said...

New term: Spencer Christianism.

Hermes said...

John Savage makes a good point, which is that while the Reeds of the world might see themselves as "winning" against the left and the (corrupt, modern) West by choosing nonwhite women who are somehow more real, more feminine, the enemies of the West, both within and without, know that it is they who are winning, because for every Fred Reed there is a white lineage that is permanently lost.

Personally, I don't understand the fascination of white American men with foreign women. If anything, far from feeling that I had "won" by choosing a nonwhite wife, I would feel defeated; as though I had had to settle for a woman I turned to only because white American women, being feminists, weren't interested in me.

Laurel1861 said...

Howdy, Hermes,

I attempted to send you an email, but Contactify didn't work for me; then I attempted to post a comment, but Blogger gave me an error message.

So, if you've received this message more than once through the mentioned means, please forgive me.

John Savage posted a link to your article "Forget marriage mandate, it's the miscegenation mandate!" over at the forums, where I am forum administrator. I thought it was very interesting, and came over here to read some of what you have to say.

I find your blog very interesting, and would like to add it to our list of useful links over at I would also like to add a link to it at my personal blog, Natural Consequences (

Thanks for considering my request; since the email didn't seem to work, could you please leave a comment over at Natural Consequences to let me know your decision?

Thanks and God bless,

Laurel1861 said...

Oops...I am forum moderator at,
not administrator. Glad I checked back...

God bless,

Laurel1861 said...

Thanks for your note, Hermes! Linked!

God bless,

Faust said...

A great article. It is most sad to see how the rot of cultural marxism has invaded even the church.

Anonymous said...

When did "non-white" equal "third world"? What are you implying? That people of two distinctly different races marrying would destroy their own races?!? Huh?

What's the problem if both parties are believers? Why would God frown on that?

Sammy said...

You can enjoy advantage of parallel dating too as many options are available depending upon your likes and dislikes.
Embarrassing chance meetings with past lovers, inquisitive co-workers, other dates, etc. become a non-issue.