Disclaimer: I can’t hate my own, but I can be truthful to them. Nobody is spared in what follows. Even I myself get attacked before very long.
One of the more eye-opening things I did in the last few years was take Prof. Iain McGilchrist’s book, The Master and his Emissary, seriously. I don’t think that there is a work currently in print which so accurately appraises the modern predicament from a purely analytical point of view. And when you have seen what he has to say, things like the “New Perspective on Paul” become better-defined as symptoms of the malaise that he discusses at ridiculously-rigourous length. According to McGilchrist, this is literally a case of madness. But because he is a normal modern human writing in English, he could not help writing a White-centric book, even as he lay a charge on humanity in general. The truth is that the phenomenon he discusses, while genuinely-human, is primarily a problem of White people. He does recognise that Europe suffers more from it, but he wrongly assumes that other groups are as prone to it. More on this later.
Another little-discussed fact is Human Bio-Diversity. Recent human history has made it a difficult thing to talk about, because the people who had the advantage in killing technology all happened to be of one ethny, in this recent human history. They were White—with a natural and healthy bias for the own people-group—and they interpreted all difference as a partial order: if X was different from Y, then there had to be one which was lesser and one which was greater. They suspended this rigidity when it came to, say, canine bio-diversity. They easily acknowledged that German Shepherds were different from Basenjis, but neither was necessarily inferior to the other. When it came to human bio-diversity, however, they insisted on the partial order. —And consequently killed off the inferior (non-White, non-Aryan, whatever) with wild relish.
(One other good thing I ever did in the recent past was to take Prof. John Sanford’s book, Genetic Entropy and the Mystery of the Genome, seriously. It is probably the best book ever written on biology. It tells you why killing off any members of the species, regardless of their “fitness score”, actually serves to reduce the fitness of the entire population. In other words, the best that we can do to maintain our population’s genes is to keep everybody alive. Apart from staying where we are, by keeping every single member alive, the only other direction is towards decay—and never against decay. Every death increases the genetic decay—the entropy. Entropy only ever remains constant or increases. It never decreases. PS: It is increasing fast, and even the rate of increase in genetic entropy is itself increasing.)
But now let us ask a question: where did this particular madness—of considering simple human bio-diversity as a fight unto death? McGilchrist has the studied answer; I have the quick one. The desire for a clean-cut binary World affects all modern people, but some populations have had these effects for far longer. The Whites, in particular, seem to have this tendency more. As a result, they are more-likely to construct grand plans for a World free of the messiness of human bio-diversity; or, at least, from the messiness of equality between different entities. This kind of situation is truly uncomfortable to the “Emissary brain” McGilchrist spoke about, and which is essentially the White brain.
These things we are more-likely to blame on culture, because we are scared of putting any charge against genes, which can only be “corrected” by killing off the flawed specimen. So when I say that Whites in general suffer this madness McGilchrist spoke of much more than other races, the concern is barely concealed: “So now you want to kill them off? Send them to concentration camps? Sterilise them?” —But that question only arises if that same madness is supposed to provide an answer; in a World that is not so “Emissary”, where there is more than enough room for both the Master and his Emissary, the Master will provide a more-human(e) answer.
So let us not freak out about the fact that White people, in general, are predisposed to this Emissary tendency, and that the predisposition is not (only) cultural, but (also) genetic. (If you do not like those parenthetical modifiers, or this one itself, you are probably an Emissary-type.) Nobody is going to walk Whites to the gas chambers for this reason, but it ought to be discussed—even admitted—just as freely as the fact that, say, Germanics make good engineers (Autobahns, Volkswagen, Mercedes, everything Germano-Helvetic) and shit rock bands (Rammstein, Kraftwerk, every note north of the Mediterranean), while the Mandé make brilliant music (everything of the Mandingo griots) and shit theology (they continue in Islam to this day). None of this makes one inferior and the other superior. Acts 17 puts the whole thing to bed very brilliantly: “From one man, God made all races of the earth’s surface—fixing a time for their rise and fall, and the limits of their settlements.” Emphasis mine.
Races vary in more than just skin colour. Psychology varies, too. The times of the rise and fall of nations are also not dependent on anything about the nations themselves, since it was pre-ordained by God. Temporal power belonging to a particular race is often mistaken for a sign of some superiority, but it has nothing to do with that at all—ultimately, we are all decayed copies of one single man, going through time and space according to God’s eternal decree. With all that said, the recent history was dominated by Japhetic peoples, and their psychological tendencies have come to be accepted as the norm. For this reason, for example, Western Christianity is more about right theology (Calvinism, a very left-brain -ism) than about right sacraments (medieval Roman Catholicism), right tradition (Eastern Orthodox, modern Roman Catholicism), or right experience (as, I would assume, African Christianity would be).
Perhaps more-importantly, Western Christianity is also more-prone to certain theological (thinking) mistakes and their consequent heresies. Now, if you have been following so far, you know that I am not saying that African Christianity, for instance, is superior (or inferior) to Western Christianity. The White mind rebels here. “But they are different! How can one not be superior‽” This left-brain rigidity in thinking is what makes them good engineers, excellent Calvinists, and very poor Bible translators.
When you hear people discuss the “subjective genitive” and the “objective genitive” cases in Koine Greek, you would be excused for thinking that Paul was aware of these grammatical short-hands, and employed them consistently. (The reality is almost the exact opposite.) This is essentially the result of people having been handed a rigid Koine Greek grammar, been told to learn it, and, when they had, been told that now they knew what Paul was saying. This makes sense to a left-brain people, and consequently they see no problem with ideas like “The New Perspective on Paul”, since it is only calling for hyper-consistent application of grammatical cases during translation. They love hyper-consistency. The left-brain can finally be appeased, even if it overthrows the entirety of Paul’s message. The message be damned; at least we now have a very consistent translation of the grammatical cases!
In reality, though, Paul never knew anything about grammatical cases. In reality, Koine Greek throws the genitive case around with such insanely wild abandon, that if often confuses those who learn Koine Greek the right way. It is noting at all like “of” in English. Consider the genitive cases at the beginning of Ephesians 1. See how wild Paul’s genitives are in Philemon. (And this is a letter he apparently wrote himself with very little editing, unlike Romans.) We should not even be discussing Paul’s use of the genitives, since Paul could never have. Paul was not a modern White.
Perhaps the Whites should write our Three Forms of Unity, but stay away from Bible translation henceforth, as that requires an entirely different approach, which is not too well-represented in their race. Similarly, the Mandé should not be telling us what to believe. They may sing the hymns, though—and only they may sing the hymns.