Today, it is all too common to hear liberals scream, "We are all one race—the human race!" We are told that "some of the finest scientific minds in the world have declared that [there is only the human race], based on the scientifically verifiable reality of our human genome." How can you possibly argue when "the mainstream belief among scientists is that race is a social construct without biological meaning"? If you notice a correlation between race and intelligence, race and crime, or anything else involving disparities between the races, it is guaranteed that the Left will respond that the cause of any such differences is racism, not race.
Interestingly, this has not only crossed over into ostensibly conservative circles but also religious. This is not necessarily new—in 2001, John Paul II said, "Racism is a sin that constitutes a serious offence against God"—but we have reached a point where "racism" has come to mean much more than actual discrimination. For example, in the Archdiocese of New York, a parishioner questioned what he saw as the "blatant favoritism towards Latinos and blacks" over whites, and his concern was denounced as "white supremacy." This is despite the fact that many archdioceses and dioceses have an "Office for Black Catholics," and the Archdiocese of New York has its own Oficina del Ministerio Hispano. For context, non-Hispanic whites are 61.3% of the US population and account for 59% of American Catholics. Why then are so many dioceses instead pandering to foreigners and minorities? Is noticing this reality a sign of "racism"?
Beyond what could be seen as Christian affirmative action, however, some have gone to fully embracing the modernist position that even acknowledging the existence of race is itself racist. For example, earlier this year, a group of Orthodox clergy in the US issued a statement in which they said, "Most emphatically there is not a 'Caucasian race' or a 'Negro race' or an 'Asiatic race.' There are nationalities, linguistic groups, cultural associations, and so forth, but these have only an accidental relationship to phenotype." In other words, they acknowledge that there are physical differences yet also claim "any biological differences between so-called 'races' are superficial at best" and classification based thereupon "is a largely artificial construct." This Orthodox statement was subsequently defended by Fr. Cassian Sibley, a Russian Orthodox priest in Texas, who wrote that race "does not exist and is a merely a social construct," that there is "no such thing as... 'Jewish blood,'" and that there "is nothing 'Marxist' (whether cultural or otherwise) about acknowledging any of this." There is a rather obvious problem with this, however: namely, it is politically correct but entirely untrue.
For example, Tang et al (2005) found that only 0.14% of test subjects "showed genetic cluster membership different from their self-identified race/ethnicity" and that "ancient geographic ancestry, which is highly correlated with self-identified race/ethnicity—as opposed to current residence—is the major determinant of genetic structure in the U.S. population." In other words, they could identify people's origins genetically with near 100% accuracy. This was replicated by Paschou et al (2010) when they showed they could not only identify a person's population of origin with near 100% accuracy but that "the number of SNPs needed for ancestry inference can be successfully reduced to less than 0.1% of the original 650,000 while retaining close to 100% accuracy."
This is no trivial thing either as the geographical/national subsets of the races are interconnected. For example, per Cavalli-Sforza (1994), here cited by Salter (2002), the genetic distance between an Englishman and a Dane, an Italian, an Indian, and a Bantu would be .0021, .0051, .028, and .229, respectively. In other words, the Englishman, Dane, and Italian are closely related while the Indian is quite a bit further away on the evolutionary tree with the Bantu in nearly another neighborhood. Another way to demonstrate this is with a phylogenetic tree, such as the one above from Nei and Roychoudhury (1993), which shows how closely (or distantly) the various populations are related. We can clearly see the five traditional races in the clustering—Negroid (A), Caucasoid (B), Mongoloid (C), Amerindian (D), and Australoid (E). Importantly, as detailed by Witherspoon et al (2007), despite general interrelatedness, people within a race are always more genetically similar than people of different races when sufficient data is used, which debunks old claims of genetic similarity overlapping between races.
Historically, people did not need genetic testing to believe what their eyes told them, but, despite claims that the races are just a myth, modern populations genetically cluster along exactly those same lines. As Tang et al said above, even in a "diverse" nation like the US, it is racial ancestry, not current residence, that determines the genetic structure of a given population. In other words, Mongoloid people may live among Caucasoid people for many generations, but, in the absence of admixture, they would remain Mongoloid. Race is not a "social construct" that can be redefined on a whim. For example, despite Fr. Sibley saying that Europeans and Japanese have similar skintones, they are of different races and would remain so even if society defined both as "white."
Similarly, society's inclinations have far less bearing on the behavior of peoples than these "anti-racists" would have us believe. For example, intelligence is highly heritable with a correlation of .75-.85, which means one's genes account for 75-85% of their IQ's deviation from the mean, and studies also show that, while whites have a mean IQ of 100, estimates for Amerindians and blacks in America are 90 and 85, respectively. Estimates for Sub-Saharan Africans range from 66 to 77. Statistically, this means that roughly 75% of Amerindians, 84% of black Americans, and 94-99% of Sub-Saharan Africans have what would be considered below average intelligence relative to whites. This leads us to the fact that low IQ correlates with anti-social behavior and criminal acts with one explanation for this being that people with lower intelligence are more primitive and less likely to "comprehend fully the consequences of criminal behavior imposed by evolutionarily novel entities of law enforcement." Is it racist to recognize this? Is it racist to think that public policies should account for these differences?
In this context, consider that 63% of American blacks have an IQ below 90, and, in the US in 2015, per the FBI, they accounted for 36.4% of all violent crime arrests including 51.1% for homicide and 28.2% for rape, despite only being approximately 13% of the population. Despite claims of American racism, this is by no means limited to the US as blacks are only 3% of the population in Canada and England yet make up 10% and 12% of their prison populations, respectively. We can also look at other self-destructive, irresponsible behaviors such as sexual promiscuity. Consider that, per the CDC in 2015, the rate of chlamydia cases among black women was 5.4 times higher than that of white women, and it was 6.8 times higher among black men than white men. The rate of gonorrhea was 9.6 times that of whites, primary and secondary syphilis was 5.2 times higher, and congenital syphilis was 8 times higher. Also in 2016, nearly half of AIDS diagnoses were among black Americans. Additionally, 72% of black children in America are born out of wedlock and nearly one-third of black pregnancies are aborted.
Once we recognize that races indeed exist and clearly correlate with things such as intelligence and anti-social behavior, it becomes difficult to justify pretending that such differences do not exist. To put a finer point on this, we can look at the case of Koko, a western lowland gorilla born in the San Francisco Zoo in 1971, who has achieved fame due to her having learned sign language. Over the years, Koko has been given a number of tests that have estimated her IQ to be "between 75 and 95 on a human scale." It is important to note here that the foundation that supports and studies Koko maintains that she is not "a 'genius' gorilla, just typical for her species." For example, Michael, a western lowland gorilla orphaned in Africa, entered the same research program with Koko, and he too learned sign language. Chimpanzees have been taught to communicate with humans through sign language as well. Statistically, it can thus be said that up to 75% of blacks in America and up to 97% of Sub-Saharan Africans have an IQ that is comparable to, or lower than, these western lowland gorillas. For the sake of comparison, the same is true for only 37% of whites. This is a clear disparity, and it is more than a little silly to dismiss all of this as being a "social construct."
Similarly, despite claims to the contrary, we can also definitively say that there is indeed "Jewish blood," which we can see below in the chart taken from Discover. The measurable distinction between Jews and gentiles is even recognized by Israel for the purposes of issuing citizenship. That Jews are genetically distinct is hardly surprising when we consider that most Jews today are Ashkenazi and descend from a "founding population of about 350 people between 600 and 800 years ago," which means that those alive today are at least 30th cousins. Moorjani et al (2011) also found that Ashkenazi Jews average 3-4% Sub-Saharan African DNA with the admixture occurring between 1,200 and 1,900 years ago. If the races are just accidents born from the same genes shared by a single race, how are we able to not only measure admixture but estimate when it occurred?
In truth, those earnest people who are the most outspoken against acknowledging race are not generally concerned with race itself, but they are rather concerned with what people might do to each other because of it. This is the supposed "sin of racism." When John XXIII called for Vatican II, he was expressly concerned with antisemitism and racism after World War II, and it was at that council that they denounced "discrimination against men or harassment of them because of their race, color, condition of life, or religion." The problem, however, is that people have become so obsessed with combating discrimination that they have broadened "racism" to include even recognizing things that could potentially lead to discrimination. Merely discussing scientific findings will quickly be met with comments such as, "This exact same methodology/ideology was promoted as 'social Darwinism' ... It promotes racism."
What then should Christians make of this? Are we to bury our heads in the sand and pretend that race does not exist and all peoples are exactly the same? That is certainly the mainstream viewpoint. Indeed, many Catholics believe that Africa will save the Church in Europe. This is despite the fact that when John Paul II went to Africa in 1985 most of the nations he visited were predominantly pagan, and it has been an ongoing problem where paganism is incorporated into African Catholicism. It has even been said that while "African Christians have not considered [the Gospel] very significant in their lives," "belief in occult and superstitions... are a reality in the lives of many Christians." Cardinal Sarah—himself an African who many neotraditionalists would have as Pope—has said that he has "absolute confidence in African culture" and "in the faith of the African people" and that "Africa saved the Holy Family (during the Flight to Egypt) and in these modern times Africa will also save the human family." It is worth noting that his own nation, Guinea, is only 3% Catholic but 85% Mohammedan and 7% pagan.
The problem here is that many faithful mistakenly believe that recognizing the reality of race inherently deprives people of their dignity, and "the measure of every institution is whether it threatens or enhances the life and dignity of the human person." Of course, the irony is that they too acknowledge race through affirmative action while claiming that race does not exist. According to the Vatican II document Gaudium et spes, poor living conditions, disgraceful working conditions, and even deportation are "infamies [that] poison human society" right up there with murder, genocide, abortion, and euthanasia, and it is a duty of every Christian to "ensure the recognition and implementation everywhere of everyone's right to human and civil culture in harmony with personal dignity, without distinction of race, sex, nation, religion, or social circumstances." In other words, race can be distinguished just as much as gender, nation, or religion, but those characteristics are to be dismissed as accidents of circumstance no different than being born rich or poor.
There are some rather obvious problems with this modernist way of thinking, however. For example, 1 Peter 3:7 does say that women should be honored despite being the weaker vessel, but 1 Timothy 2:12-14 tells us that women cannot teach in church and must remain silent because they are indeed the weaker vessel. Honoring women as the co-heirs of the grace of life does not then mean that the differences between men and women are to be ignored. Similarly, 1 Timothy 5:8 tells us that a man who fails to care for his own is worse than an infidel, but Matthew 18:15-17 nonetheless tells us to treat our own flesh and blood as foreigners if they refuse to abandon their sinful ways after being thrice rebuked. The Father has also warned against letting nonbelievers live as adversaries amongst the faithful (Numbers 33:50-55), saying to show them no mercy, to make no treaty with them, and to not intermarry with them (Deuteronomy 7:2-7, Ezra 9:10-12). The Lord Himself told the Pharisees that they do not know Him because they do not know the Father as they are children of Satan (John 8:42-47). How then are we to accept that the faithful should ignore such differences in the name of Marxist equality?
Let's compare the issue of women being the weaker vessel with the issue of race. While we are told to honor women, we are also told that they cannot be priests. As 1 Corinthians 11:3 tells us, the man is the head of the woman as Christ is the head of the man. This is part of honoring the weaker vessel, not pretending that there are no differences between men and women. In terms of the nations and tribes of the world, the Lord said, "Going therefore, teach ye all nations; baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost." But how exactly is that achieved by the modernists' notion that we must ignore things like racial disparities in intelligence, crime rates, STD rates, and so on? How can you correct sins in others when you say it is the "sin of racism" to even discuss their behavior and why they may behave that way? How can you deal with 1 in 3 black pregnancies in America ending in abortion, or 3 in 4 of the remainder being born out of wedlock, when you refuse to consider the true causes of such behavior and instead blame everything on "racism"?
It is easy to say, "We are all made in God's image," but what of actually doing as the Lord commanded and correcting others' sins (James 5:19-20), rebuking and treating as foreigners those who will not change? Instead, we see drug dealers becoming millionaires, our children encouraged to listen to lyrics about fornication and greed set to the sounds of tribal drum beats, as they sway and gyrate mimicking tribal dances such as the Mapouka, which supposedly "led to encounters with God" through shaking one's buttocks in a crowd. This is what happens when we refuse to actually obey God and instead substitute the childish reasoning of men for His infinite wisdom. Not all peoples are the same, and not all cultures are equal. It is not for us to declare otherwise in the face of what is observable in His Creation. When we fail to abide by His commandments, the result is what can be said is the Africanization of society. This is not to say that Africans are incapable of more, but it is rather to speak to the fact that the traditional African norm is at odds with the European. One born of faith, the other not. Europe's troubles are due to secularization and embracing depravity as "cultural enrichment," and the solution to Judeo-Bolshevism and Africanization is not more of the same.
To be clear, Christians should not abuse others, and certainly not out of malice, but there is a clear tendency by the modernists to condemn that which the Lord did not and to read their sensibilities into the Lord's words. For example, they are fond of citing Galatians 3:28, which says, "There is neither Jew nor Greek." They take this to mean that racial or ethnic distinctions do not matter and are thus subject to being erased. If we read it as, "There is neither European nor African," we can see that it does not mean that Europeans and Africans do not actually exist because they obviously do. This should be obvious since it continues, "there is neither bond nor free: there is neither male nor female," even though the Lord did not condemn slavery, and men and women are clearly biologically different and even have different roles within the Church. We should also be able to recognize that it does not mean Europeans and Africans are exactly the same.
The future of the Christian faith hangs in the balance. As Christendom is flooded with non-Christian hordes, LifeSiteNews is running stories celebrating that "the destiny of humanity is black" since the Sub-Saharan African population is set to continue growing despite efforts by international organizations to convince Africans to use contraceptives and such. It does not seem to factor into the equation that the Sub-Saharan African population has exploded from 186 million in 1950 to 1 billion today almost entirely because of foreign aid in the form of food, water, and medicine. What exactly will happen to the future black humanity when there are no Europeans or Asians to provide such aid? When the entire world has a mean IQ of 66 to 77, are we to think that the world will be a paradise governed by Catholic theology, or will it be a violent, debauched place worthy of a Biblical purging? We can already see that flooding Europe with the Third World is leading to growth for Islam within Christendom. How long are we to wait before we see the great cathedrals of France turned into mosques? How long until the first European nation officially becomes an Afro-Islamic state?
Christians must wake up. The Lord commanded us to make disciples of the nations, and it is no mere coincidence that St. Peter established the Church in Rome with Europeans then carrying the faith to the furthest reaches of the world. Europe is being subverted, and Europeans are being slowly but surely replaced. It is not a coincidence that this is also an attack on Christianity, seeing the growth of Islam where Catholics once fought for centuries to drive them out. We can see that inviting Pharisees into the Vatican, letting Islamic prayers be heard in the Holy See, and kissing the feet of perverts during Mass in Rome are not going to save Holy Mother Church, but many still cannot bring themselves to the realization that race is undeniably important in this battle. Allowing Europeans to fall is not going to save the Church or Europe. If the "Africanization" of Europe, its peoples, and the Church is the solution, why then is Africa not a paradise?
The truth is that we are witnessing the construction of a new proverbial Tower of Babel, and supposed Christians are celebrating it to show they are not "racist." Those who so clearly serve Satan in all things long for a single, non-white human race, and one only need look at how vociferously they encourage mass migration and miscegenation. They openly celebrate the secularization and bastardization of society, and that includes them drooling over the possibility of white nations falling to foreign hordes. They attack Christianity for being too religious, but they scramble to welcome literal hordes of Islamic fundamentalists because Christianity is their target, not all religion. They seek to reorder God's Creation in Satan's image and to destroy the true faith forever, and they have found no greater allies than Christians who fear being called "racist." In these trying times, we are left to ponder—where is Charles Martel to save us?