Our Lord says that He will grant to those who overcome to eat of the tree of life, which grows upon the riverbank of His Kingdom, and the leaves of this tree are for the healing of the nations.
I think it is a good time to explain my thoughts on nation and ethnicity. These two are the same, one being from Latin, the other Greek. They mean birth, issue, and progeny, so far as I understand it, the children and offspring down the line of each man. (Note: I have been corrected on the term “race”, which of the three I least understand. The word meant something in antiquity, I am not sure what, but it was revitalized by the evolutionists and essentially the protestants in England to differentiate between different types of men, as if they did not have the same forebear, or as if they were further apart than man with certain animals. This was necessary in England because of their rebellion from the Church. It followed philosophically from their pride that said they were the only nation to retain true Catholicism in the world. Hence, they believed that they descended from the lost tribes of Israel, and that they were justified in committing atrocities against the Irish because the Irish were members of a different race of men who were cursed by God with an inability to break away from Pope. Otherwise, how could they coexist so closely to the English without realizing the folly of Catholicism? I footnote the correction for all to see.[1])
Sem and Japheth
We all issue not only from Adam but also from Noe, who had three sons. The first named Sem was the father of all Semitic races, which is to say, those sand-colored people who live in the Middle East primarily. Of the three, Sem had the least spread with his progeny apparently because he was the one who received the promise from God of a Redeemer, since his son was the Christ. This follows virtue, and as had been the case since Cain and can be seen in such examples as Nimrod. Those other sons were more worldly and always went on to establish dominion in their own names over worldly metals, food, and instruments of revelry. In contrast, the godly sons tended to stay near their fathers (until Abraham was specifically commanded otherwise, after the death of his father) and focused upon penance and simple, holy labors, without ever establishing a name for themselves, but living under the dominion of the elder sons meekly.
So, too, the ancient Israelites came from the loins of Sem, but not most of the Jews of today, who have made that name for themselves in contrast and posterior to Christians, and who are distinguished consequently more by their religion than by their race. These false Jews (although the name is applicable for their characteristic rejection of Christ and their similarity to Jude, whose lechery might be read in Genesis, although I ask his intercession, he being a great penitent and patriarch, for those who corrupt his name) seem to descend mostly from Ascenez, a grandson of Japheth, although that remains conjecture from me based upon what I have heard to be their tribe from such people as Mr. Benjamin Shapiro.
To Sem, this son of Noe, was granted to have the Christ and to maintain the true religion, especially through the particular line under Eber, the Hebrews, who also retained the first language of the world before Babylon was established by Nimrod. But our Lord punished this line after His Death for the crime of Deicide, and scattered and destroyed them through all the Earth, hiding them, too, since the genealogies were destroyed with the Temple by Rome. To these hidden people is definitely promised that restoration mentioned by the Church Fathers, in my opinion, and not necessarily those sons of Japheth who follow them willfully in their crimes only, and not in the faith of their father Abraham.
The Romans, Greeks, and all the peoples of Europe, youngest of the races, derive from Japheth, son of Noe, and in the tents of these are hidden the Hebrews, as they have inherited the true Religion by Christ’s command, and no longer does the Jew truly exist, but there is only the false Jew, whose whole religion is a hatred of Christ.
Cham
Cham was the other son of Noe, and it seems to me likely that he was the eldest.
There is a recurring pattern in man’s history that begins in some ways with the angels and the fall of that enemy of our souls, who then seduced Eve, who seduced Adam into sin. But it is more easily seen in Cain, Abel, and Seth, the sons of Adam. Cain being the eldest, and the promise of God being understood to provide a Seed from the woman to crush the serpent, Eve exclaims in joy that she has born a man-child, with the help of God. It seems not unlikely that our first father and mother believed that Cain was in fact Christ, the Redeemer. There are errors in Cain which can be seen with a study of his life, but ultimately, worldliness is the category which it all may fall under, and this caused him to murder a prophet, to oppress his brethren, and to establish the first city and kingdom, bestowing it upon his own son.
Cham follows this pattern. Since there are only three sons after the Flood which destroyed the whole world, and Noe does not have more children, it must be that evil came through them, since God had destroyed the evil from the earth. In this, it is implied that Cham carries the bulk of the blame, because of how he “exposes the nakedness” of his father, which brings a curse upon him and his son, Canaan.
Now, all these things are in one way dissolved in Christ, but that does not mean that they do not have an effect. For instance, whereas Japheth and his children seem to have gone principally north to the Caucasus and to fill Europe, being the source of all those fair-skinned of the earth, Cham has gone south, west, east, and to have remained to rule over Sem, being the father of Nimrod, exactly in the manner of Cain. And of all peoples, Cham’s progeny has changed the most in body and culture, being the father of all the “yellow”, “blue”, and “black”-skinned of the earth (see the Golden Legend). And these regions of Africa and Asia have been the last to receive the Gospel of our Lord, despite the early travels of the Apostles and the relative proximity of them to the fatherland of all fatherlands.
Kingdom of Heaven
It is a Protestant error to put so much stock into the Old Testament as to forget the New, and also to put so much stock in the New as to forget the Old. It might have been expected by that first generation of the new age that Christ’s promises might have brought the world swiftly to an end, much as it might have been expected by Adam that Christ would swiftly come, and then he endured one thousand years of penance with his body and another three thousand separated therefrom. Obviously, God has preserved us through two thousand years of history for a particular purpose, and that purpose is simple and presented plainly to us. He wishes more men to be saved, that there may be more glory in Heaven of more diverse types.
God is the author of the nations, as can be seen in the scattering at Babel, and He also preserves the nations unto the new Heaven and Earth, as can be seen in Apocalypse. Therefore, all those nations in their great diversity that have resulted not only from that filling of the Earth commanded to Noe, but also for the four thousand intervening years, the middle of which was the Incarnation, are not negligible. Some may be destined for destruction, but even these have come about, it seems, so that God may take a firstfruit from them. And so, for instance, the Irish nation, the French nation, the Ugandan nation, the Manchurian nation, the Japanese nation, the wicked American nation, etcetera, etcetera, exist so that saints may be had, and persist so that glory may be shown. A cursory study of the lives and writings of the saints will show this most plainly, and anyone who sees the great love of Saint Patrick or Saint Damien of Molokai for their particular people, will know that God must honor these servants of His.
Therefore, it is profitable for us to understand not only the nations in their origin, in their history, and in their produce (of saints), but also to conform to these things insofar as they show the love and artistry of our Maker. For in Heaven, we will still be of our nations, in the same way that we will still bear the wounds which we suffered for Christ, and in hell, we will bear the marks of our baptism, that would add to our torments there (it seems to me).
A Chinaman ought to pray for the old emperors’ souls, and for the soul of Cham, and for the souls of his forefathers, moreso the more proximate they are, because there is no doubt that those which have attained Heaven or purgatory are interceding for him. An Irishman ought to do the same for his fathers who suffered famine and exile for their sins, and glorify Saint Patrick, Saint Malachy, Saint Columba, Saint Abigail, Saint Brigid, Saint Brendan, and all the rest in their multitude (easily done simply by learning their endless names).
Beyond this, a Chinaman ought to look to the hand of God upon his nation, and what God may want from it. An Irishman ought to understand the curse which was laid upon his nation because of the profanation of holy days and the blasphemy of the Lord’s name in the nineteenth century, and understand that it is a curse that he live in America and has lost his inheritance. An Englishman ought to understand the rebellion which his nation has always given to God’s Church and invoke Saint Austin, Saint Aidan, Saint Thomas of Canterbury, and all the rest who offered their blood against it, that his nation be chastised back into the loving embrace of his Lord. A Frenchman ought to understand the imperial crown which God has given and God has taken from his nation, and pray that the virtue of the holy kings return, and all communists and sodomites perish one way or another (for conversion is the death of the old man). A Spaniard ought to pray for the conquesting spirit of his ancestors to be tempered by a return of piety, meekness, and humility, and glorify God for the great mercies leveled upon Spain, which to this day retains her king and her faith. Although I do not know, because I am not a Spaniard, but it seems to me that the safer virtues listed are present, and that rare one of courage, that charism of battle, is asleep. No doubt a study of Saint Ferdinand is necessary to all Christendom.
This multiplies endlessly. The point is that God is the Author of life and all the complexities that have arisen. We must seek His hand, not buck it by wishing a dirty paint can full of some ugly gray mixture to be the end result of all the nations. That is the art of the enemy of our souls.
This is a complex subject. I invite question and comment to my email, taurusnecrus@gmail.com. Responding to such is likely the best way to flesh out this in all its consequences, since you all are members of different nations, and then people might know exactly how racist, nationalist, and ethnicist I am, if they care to know. I believe I have touched on some of the most controversial truths at their roots. Please, though, email me as I have requested, or failing that, write a letter to PO Box 193, Mountain City, TN 37683. This is because if you contact me in some other way, the valuable objection which you raise might be lost, and I could not publish the results to which we come. This would be a bad thing. It is plain to see how ignorant and confused people are on this topic, and how much they slight God in His works without even knowing it.
[1] DEB; the Greek distinguishes between “race” and “ethnicity,” with the former being “genos” and the latter being “ethnos.” It’s a significant distinction: “Genos” can legitimately be translated as “race” or “species” the way we think of these terms today, i.e., in biological terms. “Ethnos,” literally means “tongue” (language), “tribe”, and by extension, “culture.” Notably, all of these are arguably mutable— one can marry into another tribe or learn another language, or change one’s culture. Biology, however, is, by God’s design, immutable, hence the great Satanic scandal of the transgender movement. “Genos” is used 22 times in the GNT; “Ethnos” 175 times. While St. Paul seems to have liked to use the word interchangeably with “ethnos”, the Gospel writers often use genos to refer to “birth”, in other words using “genos” as a verbal noun for the verb “gennao”— to beget, give birth to. (See Mk. 7:26 in the Duay-Rhemis). I would argue that for the most part, the GNT speaks of what today we call “ethnicity”, not race. Thus I would implore you to replace “race” in your essay with “tribe” or “nation”. I think that to use “race” is to give in to Protestant scientism and racism. As you point out from Genesis— which St. Paul refers to in Acts— “God hath made from one blood all the nations of men upon the face of the earth”— our Tribe— “the race of Christians— (Catholics)” —have historically not bought into the notion of different “races or species of men, whichever term may be applied” (Darwin, Descent of Man) because we actually believe what Genesis records— especially what God Himself recorded!
Recommended Stories
Recommended Purchases
Postscript:
I have used your comment with some edits as a footnote in the essay and made an explanation of it in the main body. This is because your dialectic explanation of “race” was difficult to apply to the rhetorical use of the word in the opening of the essay, which rhetoric was purposed to destroy the meaning of the word and subsume it into the more useful meaning of “nation” and “ethnicity”, since culture is a fine opposing word that expresses voluntarity. The most significant edit I made to your comment was when you included the word “nation” as a synonym to “tongue” and “tribe”, which I believe was a mistake. The reason is because “nation” refers specifically to “birth” in Latin (natus ex Maria Virgine). Nation is absolutely misused today, as I express below in analyzing both my and your separate nations. Therefore, it seems that “race” was originally misused as being an obscure word by Protestants in order to express a nonexistent thing, and then that confusion infected the word “nation”. Since nation is essentially nonvoluntary, and yet race was invented into meaning something even less voluntary, then nation ended up meaning in common parlance something slightly more voluntary than it ought to be. Which is why so many people refer to the “American nation” but really mean the “American empire”, since the American nation can only be the descendants of the original hundred and fifty years of Anglo-saxon colonists, which thing is expressly referred to in the Constitution where it says “ourselves and our Posterity”. I am not the posterity of Mr. Benjamin Franklin nor Mr. George Washington and neither are you. These changes can be seen in the attached original edits of yours and also my final draft, but do not feel compelled to look at them if you understand what I have told you here, since they are small and can be seen in the first paragraph alone.
I am publishing this soon. I see here in your comments that you said it would be a consolation to hear my thoughts on what Americans should pray for their nation. First of all, the Americans who belong to the nation of America are fairly few, and I think you are not one of them. Furthermore, it is a more complex answer than with the other examples I give. Perhaps if I knew more about China, I would give a similar answer there, since I know that “China” means Middle Empire or something of that nature, and their landmass and nature is clearly imperial, as is ours.
Now, empire means that there are a number of subject nations under a central nation. Therefore, the easiest guiding example comes from Rome, which many people have pointed out ad nauseum. But we are so foolish and uneducated and fearful of public opinion, all because of the unique corruptions of science and wisdom in our age, that we do not draw the obvious conclusions. First of all, America is not our nation, that is, not yours nor mine. For me, I was born in New Hampshire to a fifth generation exile from Ireland who had wedded a twelth or so generation colonist from Sweden. Many other nationalities intervened in this long geneaology, as a few did in the case of David and our Lord, and mine were more illegitimate. But, sparing a long digression, I have determined Ireland to be the most appropriate nation with which to associate myself, as Moses concluded similarly about Israel. Like him, my condition under that nation is not at all different than the norm, since most Irishmen are exiles and descendants of exiles. I have given in the essay the answer to how Irishmen should pray. You have heard it from me before besides.
In your case, you are an American in the imperial sense, as St Paul was a Roman. But you are a German in the national sense, it seems to me, as St Paul was a Jew, and very jewy besides. You, also, are very germany. Of course, Germany too is an empire, but a much smaller one as conventionally understood than America. There are only two or three nations subject to Germany, and one of these are the Catholics of the south of Germany, to which nation you seem to belong, and which have been distinct since the time of Charlemagne from their north German, Italian, and Austrian neighbors, as well as some other nations that split later on, such as the Swiss and Czechs, who I do not understand as well. Now, a characteristic of both the south and north Germans is their unique colonial nature in America in which they stayed very much culturally separated from their Anglo-Saxon neighbors and maintained fairly self-sufficient communities in mountainous areas. This, although degraded, you seem to maintain in your patriotic approach to your father’s land. A distinction of the south Germans from the north Germans is their fidelity to Holy Mother Church. I think in these two characteristics you can see yourself clearly. Unlike my people, your people are rather colonists than exiles, as similarly were my mother’s people. Now, it may seem very convuluted and unintuitive that we ought to understand so much of history in order to make simple prayers, but if you reflect for a moment on Moses, the prophets, David, the other Patriarchs, and saints both on the throne and in the monastery, then you will see that it is very consistent for holy people to understand such things so far as it behooves them to in order to aid the effectiveness of their prayer. I think it is something like the abstraction to higher things which St Thomas teaches. This conclusion I have reached because people who have a very narrow view of history tend to reach false conclusions about prayer, as did the common Israelite in Egypt who confused the True God with a calf, and these people do the same with capitalism or some other thing.
So, it seems to me that you ought to pray for the colonial intentions of southern Germans (Bavarians?) so far as they were guided by such patrons as St Boniface and Bl Charlemagne to convert the surrounding heretics and to prosper in the land which God has given them. As for the empire containing your nation, it would make sense to pray for it as St Sebastian prayed for Diocletian and the Roman state, as can be seen in the attached life of St Sebastian.