Neo-Babelism

 

In my last post earlier this week, I used the term Neo-Babelism. Specifically, I stated that allowing men of all races into one’s country was Neo-Babelism. Simply put, Neo-Babelism is ignoring God’s concept of nations. Let me clarify what this means. As there seems to be little on the internet in way of articles explaining the concept of Neo-Babelism, let me begin to rectify it with this essay.

Obviously, the term Neo-Babelism is a reference to the Tower of Babel mentioned in the 11th chapter of the book of Genesis in the Old Testament. As best as I can tell, the term Neo-Babelism is of Kinist origin. The Kinists are a specific branch of White Nationalists who are generally Calvinist/Reformed theologically and who believe that (1) God created the various races of men for his own purposes, (2) that man was meant to live in family/tribe based units, and (3) that miscegenation is a sin. The Kinists I have read seem to be more oriented towards the C.S.A. than the American Revolution, and usually seem inclined toward Dominionism and Theonomy.

Basically, the concept of Neo-Babelism holds out four key points: (1) that God separated the human race into different racial tribes/nations, (2) that the dispersion at Babel was aimed to stop the sin that would ensue when all men are united, (3) that God reaffirmed this with Act 17:26 in the New Testament, and (4) that attempts to form countries of multiple tribes/nations and promote miscegenation (interracial marriage and procreation) is a sinful rebellion against God’s law.

First, what is a nation? The New Testament words “gentile”, “gentiles” and “nations” are usually translated from the Greek word ethnos (where we get the word ethnicity), and means tribe or nations. Acts 17:26 speaks of “all nations (ethnos) of men”.

God first mentions nations in the Bible in Genesis 10:5; this is shortly before the first mention of a kingdom or king. A kingdom is a political entity/country, but is not necessarily always made up of one nation. Genesis 10:5 states “By these were the isles of the Gentiles divided in their lands; every one after his tongue, after their families, in their nations”. God, shortly after the flood and before the rise of Babel, instituted multiple kin/family groups.

Babel brought all nations of men together, speaking one language, in one place. This was a direct rebellion to the God ordained pattern of national families, each in their own territory. Further, they built a city and a tower.

Going back in time, after Cain killed Abel, the Lord declared sentence upon Cain and told him to be a “fugitive and a vagabond”. Yet Cain rebels by settling down and building the first city. Later we see righteous Abraham in the rural areas, while Lot descends to the city of Sodom (before God calls him out of it and destroys it). Babel was a multiracial but monolingual city that wanted to build a tower to Heaven, not that any man of flesh could ever reach God’s dwelling place or stand in his presence. When man congregates together, it is a breeding ground of sin; when men of many races do this, the effect is multiplied. Babel displeased God, as he knew that together man’s sinfulness would not be restrained when they were united at Babel, and thus God “confounded” their language and dispersed them (Genesis 11:6-9). Man was once again in tribal units and spread out as agrarians.

Later, after the nation of Israel (the twelve tribes) had arisen and left Egypt, they were given laws by God. In Deuteronomy 23:3-8 we see that some races of men were excluded from entering into the congregation, at least for several generations. Yes indeed. It did not say that these men might not seek God and repent, as did Nineveh, but they could not enter into the congregation of Israel.  We know that non-Jewish slaves were allowed to live in Israel. Obviously, entering into the congregation is different than living in the tribal territory. Matthew Henry (1662-1714), perhaps the most famed Bible commentator of all time, holds that not entering into the congregation could mean: (1) no participation in religious services with Israelites, (2) participation but no office holding, or (3) prohibition on intermarriage. Whatever the exact distinction, there clearly was one. As we later read in Nehemiah 13:23-27 that God’s prophet Nehemiah was GREATLY displeased that some Jews had married “strange wives”.

In the New Testament we read God reconfirm his desire for man to be in separate nations. Many ignorant advocates of multiculturalism point to Acts 17:26. Let us read it. “And hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth, and hath determined the times before appointed, and the bounds of their habitations”.—Act 17:26 

While it is true that all men are of one original bloodline, that of Adam and then Noah, that does not render national/racial distinctions nonexistent. In fact, Acts 17:26 clearly states that God made multiple nations and appointed the “bounds of their habitations”! Whether one believes these bounds to be (1) geographical boundaries of tribal territories, (2) genetic boundaries, or (3) both of these –it is clear that God himself placed boundaries between the races. Do not attempt to undo what God has decreed. Further, the next verse in Acts states that they were separated “That they should seek the Lord…” –just exactly the reason for the dispersion from Babel back in Genesis!

Some will further object that there is “neither Jew nor Greek” in Christ (Galatians 3:28). In that verse it also says there is neither male nor female, but homosexuality and sodomite marriage is not legalized by Galatians! This verse is simply showing that salvation is open to all; it does not support miscegenation.

In conclusion, bringing men of many different races into one country and promoting intermarriage is a violation of God’s consistent commands throughout his word; it is simply rebuilding the tower of Babel without the bricks. It can result in nothing good.

It would seem to me that there are major distinction between races, and minor distinctions between tribes. For example, a Chinese person or a Negro from sub-Saharan Africa should not marry a European, but it would not seem wrong for a German to marry a Scot. Regardless of exactly where one draws the line, it is clear that America was founded and primarily settled by Western Europeans (my ancestors!) and that we have subsequently formed our own distinctive ethnic group –the Amerikaners that I wrote of in my earlier essay I am an Amerikaner. Fellow Christians, awake and do not build -or advocate others build- a modern tower of Babel. Say no to Neo-Babelism.  

© Copyright 2017 by Joseph Charles Putnam of Orange County, Indiana. All rights reserved.

Advertisements

Author: Joe Putnam

I am a Christian (Reformed/Sovereign Grace Baptist type), white American of Western European bloodline, advocate of an agrarian social order, Kinist, White Nationalist, admirer of America’s Founding Fathers and the Boys in Gray, homesteader, indie published author, and amateur historian. I have indie published several books, all of which are available from Amazon. I am a life long resident of rural Orange County, IN –in the part of the Upper South that many would term Greater Appalachia or the Dixie Frontier. In addition to my own blog, I am a contributor to the multi-author blog Identity Dixie. I am active in promotion of the Alt-South movement. In addition to my blog writings, I am currently gearing up for (at least) two more book projects –one theological and one historical. The theological one will cover the three interpretational views of Daniel’s 70th Week. I hope to have this book in print in late summer 2017. (Hint: I am, not a Dispensational Futurist). The historical book will be a biography of George Rogers Clark (1752-1818). Clark was a noted Virginia militia officer who’s campaigns, including his successful siege of Vincennes, basically took the Old Northwest from Britain during the American Revolution. Clark spent the rest of his life around the river that separates Clarksville, IN from Louisville, Kentucky. I hope to have my Clark bio in print in early 2018.

4 thoughts on “Neo-Babelism”

  1. The current re segregation of blacks by their own race is the answer
    to the question of multiculturalism . It’s a sham.

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s