I think we should invent a new epithet — hatism. A hatist is one that suspects smoldering hatred as the motive wherever a provocative thesis that goes against the current political regime is put forth. Clearly, you are a hatist.

Now, does that help you to see how useless all this flinging of epithets is? It does no work at all.

Your opening salvo six months ago worried about racist red flags, to which I pointed out that your examples dealt not just with racism, but with all the isms of our controlled media — racism, sexism, and homophobia. I submit you need flags of many colors.

Responding to “red flags” is something that is still at the irrational, “henid” stage — like a bull responding to a red towel. They are useless at the level of rational discourse. You need to work harder to articulate your feelings rationally, or — as I hope — recognize that the primal feelings have been corrupted by the controlled establishment and use that as an insight to find your way out of the quagmire.

(1) You wrote, “It can come about that the revelation of God no longer plays a functional role in a man’s behavior or, at least as to what anyone can observe, his conscience. It is in this connection that I interpret Hegel’s remarks. He is saying that the Upland Negroes showed no knowledge of deity functionally.”

I am not sure what you mean when you speak of the revelation of God no longer playing a functional role in a man’s behavior. Are you saying that men can live in this world with absolutely no reliance on a knowledge of God? Are you saying that morally speaking there may be no point of contact with some people?

(2) You said that the term “racism” or “racist” has next to zero significance in your vocabulary, and it should be the same in my vocabulary. I understand your desire for a little precision in our defining of terms, but I have to wonder if this is simply an evasion tatic. Maybe dispensationalists should use a similar tatic against covenant theologians who are unable to give a precise definition of the term “covenant” that they can agree on.

I suppose I would define racism as hatred in one’s heart towards another based on race, which manifests itself in words and actions. This would be a violation of the sixth commandment. Generally speaking, this is what I mean by racism. I have no allegiance to the term if you do not like it and want to use another.

Perhaps it is next to impossible to know if someone is being racist by their words, besides a direct statement by someone saying that they hate a person because of their race. Maybe the intention behind the words that are used is the determining factor, in which case it would be very difficult to determine if someone was being racist on this blog.

It is difficult for me to think there is no racism given all the red flags that constantly surface on this blog (comments from guests included). I suppose if you think that you and others who comment on this site are in no danger of being racist as I have defined it, then I will not press the issue any further.

True, Negroes are not the enemy. They are largely the dupes and pawns of manipulators. But we must oppose not only the manipulators, but the content of the manipulation as well.

Thus, “What is the purpose in posting an article in which someone argues that black people should be thanking white people for perpetuating their slavery because of all the benefits of their coming to America?” Not thanking white people, but thanking God; and publicly; and moving on. The purpose would be to abandon racial politics of the shake-down.

“Why is it that I have seen nothing constructive about black people on this site, or anything that even hints about a godly desire to see them discipled?” Because not every conceivable worthy desire is part of the purpose of this blog.

“Why is it that some people commenting on your site are very clearly and without a doubt racist, some of whom state openly that they are pro-white, and yet they never receive any kind of rebuke from you or MRB?” Well, I’m pro-white. You are not? Then shame on you!

As I said, I don’t know what is meant by “racist” anymore, so I don’t know if anyone posting here is “guilty” of it. I think it’s pretty clear from the discussions that where there is substantive content that we disagree with, we interact; as here for example.

The “knowledge of God” is ambiguous when dealing with the unregenerate. There is a sense in which men do, and a sense in which men do not know God. There is no shortage of revelation, but sinners suppress the truth. God sometimes responds to that suppression by “giving them over to a reprobate mind,” Rom 1:28. Moreover, He sometimes sends them a “strong delusion, that they should believe a lie,” 2 Thes 2:11. We should take the serious warning from this situation: the relation to the “lie” of such a person is belief, not simply pretense. Such believe is false, but it is (truly) belief. It can come about that the revelation of God no longer plays a functional role in a man’s behavior or, at least as to what anyone can observe, his conscience.

It is in this connection that I interpret Hegel’s remarks. He is saying that the Upland Negroes showed no knowledge of deity functionally.

Hegel is not, of course, speaking as an evangelical Christian. So a question such as, are you saying these men are beyond the regeneration of sovereign grace? would be orthogonal to his understanding. In that sense, we could say that Hegel’s view is defective, but that’s rather harsh. If the absence of a full-orbed Christian theology, every non-Christian, and most Christian thinkers are going to fall short of the mark, at least by what they fail to say. But I interpret his absence-of-God observation along the lines of the above remarks.

Perhaps you have discovered an ambiguity in Hegel’s exposition between a strictly geographic exposition and a racial one. Instead of “Negro,” perhaps he should have said “upland Negro.”

However, I suspect Hegel, though expounding on geography, would have seen an organic harmony between development as manifested in geography and race that is found in a particular geography. Which comes first, the chicken or the egg? would probably interest him less, in view of his principle of immanence.

Does Nubia represent an exception to the race/geography identification? If you insist so, I won’t argue forever; it’s not that important. However, it does not seem like much of an exception to me. (1) Their accomplishments were rather meager, especially given the 2,000 year span. You can get out of school without having even heard of the Nubians, and your knowledge of civilization illustrated by China, Japan, Persia, Egypt, Israel, Greece, Rome, and Germania will not be missing much. (2) Nubian culture, according to the article cited, was largely derivative from others: “Through earlier history, we see that the main examples of strong states of Nubia have taken the cultural framework from foreign cultures, be it Egyptian, Arab or Turkish.” This is certainly consistent with my point (not Hegel’s) that the Negro becomes part of history when he intersects with other tribes and races. And (3), the Nubians were also racially mixed: “As mentioned the name ‘Nubia’ points at the black condition of the inhabitants, in stark contrast to the peoples of the north, the Egyptians. Yet, there have been a number of important sweeps of immigration to Nubia. The people have been mixed with other ethnic groups several times, the easiest to identify over in the last two millenniums are the Arabs and the Turks.”

Hegel’s main generalizations about the Negro ring true because we see the same characteristic behavior in the American ghetto, in a land separated by thousands of miles, circumstance, and Christianization. That he is on to something seems evident; if it needs refinement, that would be consistent with Hegel’s own view of development!

More on your other points later…

(1) I am not sure where Ethiopia came into all this. You seem to be attributing something to me that I have never claimed. In any case, I will remind you of my initial disagreement with a comment from Hegel and MRB.

Hegel said, “From these various traits it is manifest that want of self-control distinguishes the character of the Negroes. This condition is capable of no development or culture, and as we see them at this day, such have they always been.”

I was trying to show that Hegel is incorrect. The Cushites were an ancient civilization. As Hays says:

“a civilization that stood as one of the major powers in the Ancient Near East for over 2,000 years; a civilization that appears again and again in the biblical text. The Cushites are particularly important to this study because they were clearly Black Africian people with classic ‘Negroid’ features.”

This shows that Hegel is incorrect. Negroes are not incapable of development and culture. At best, Hegel would have to say that what he says may be true of some Africans, but it is not true of all Negroes by any stretch of the imagination. Of course this then discounts his view that Africa is no historical part of the world.

MRB says something similar in a comment,

“Hegel’s thesis is that Africa has no history due partly from the fact that they lack self-control…why is it that Negroes have never created a civilization?”

Hegel’s thesis is incorrect. Negroes have created a civilization and thus do have a history.

(2) You said you want a Scripture verse next to a line from Hegel to show a contradiction. Okay.

Hegel writes, “so that the Knowledge of an absolute Being, an Other and a Higher than his individual self, is entirely wanting.”

Paul writes, “For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them. For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse. For even though they knew God, they did not honor Him as God or give thanks, but they became futile in their speculations, and their foolish heart was darkened.”

Hegel says the Negro has no knowledge of God, whereas Paul says everyone knows God. This would be a contradiction. Hegel then builds on this with a sub-human analysis of the Negro. Christians could agree with this if they agree with Hegel that Negros have no knowledge of God. However, Paul says that no man can escape the knowledge of God; it cannot be finally eradicated. This, then, explains why a Christian can never give a sub-human analysis of the Negro like Hegel does. Like it or not, all Negroes are created in the image of God.

(3) You wrote, “You shouldn’t waste time speculating about people’s hidden or suppressed animosity.”

So, when a Christian professes obedience to God’s Word, yet then “seems” to live contrary to that, we should not waste our time with it? You claim not to be racist, but some things on this site seem to contradict that. This is not just speculating about motives. If it was, then according to you, it would be impossible to show self-deception. I think we both know this is incorrect.

I admit that I may be wrong. Perhaps what I think amounts to racism is incorrect. I am willing to be corrected on this. I understand that racial politics are being used to destroy our civilization. However, Negroes as a class of people are not the enemy. What is the purpose in a post that argues that black people have no history, thus showing the supposed foolishness of black history month? What is the purpose in posting an article in which someone argues that black people should be thanking white people for perpetuating their slavery because of all the benefits of their coming to America? Why is it that I have seen nothing constructive about black people on this site, or anything that even hints about a godly desire to see them discipled? Why is it that some people commenting on your site are very clearly and without a doubt racist, some of whom state openly that they are pro-white, and yet they never receive any kind of rebuke from you or MRB?

The thread is about Hegel. I find it absurd to imagine someone thinking Ethiopia provides a defeater to Hegel’s observations. For all the reasons I gave, and others. If you reject all those considerations, then consider Ethiopia the exception that proves the rule.

I don’t think Hegel has “contradicted Scripture” at least in the excerpts I gave. May I suggest that you list a sentence from Hegel next to a verse of Scripture to reveal the contradiction?

You shouldn’t waste time speculating about people’s “hidden or suppressed animosity.”

Racial politics are being used to destroy our civilization. We have a right to assert and defend that civilization.

(1) I am not sure I understand your response. Are you saying that there was a Cushite civilization, but that scholars disagree with who the Cushites were and where they were located? In response, the fact that people disagree does not really provide a basis for holding to our biases.

Also, I try not to give much weight to things found through google searches. You supposedly gave an example of a “scholarly” resource from a google search. However, the site believes America is in prophecy, and there is no reference to who is responsible for the content on the site. I am sorry, but I cannot take this as a “scholarly” source. It seems like you are really reaching here.

I think you need to read From Every People and Nation: A Biblical Theology of Race by J. Daniel Hays. He writes:

“The Cushites are particularly important to this study because they were clearly Black African people with classic ‘Negroid’ features. There are two lines of evidence for this conclusion. First, the Cushites are presented this way in the ancient art of the Egyptians, and, later in history, in that of the Greeks and Romans. Second, numerous ancient literary texts refer, directly and indirectly, to the black skin colour and other ‘Negroid’ features of the Cushites.”

He elaborates on these two lines of evidence in the book. Finally, you keep talking about rescuing Hegel’s thesis. I am still not sure what you mean. You will have to elaborate.

(2) Hegel contradicts Scripture in regard to his understanding of man, specifically black Africans. He, then, draws conclusions that are biblically and historically inacurrate.

(3) I agree that everyone should continually thank God for His many blessings to all mankind.

(a) Why do you find it necessary to make sure that black people daily thank God? Because you think they are ungrateful? Is it not true that there are many ungrateful peoples (especially white Americans) in this world? So, why single them out?

(b) Do you single them out because you think black people complain too much about slavery? I guess I am not sure how this relates to their thankfulness. I think they are very thankful that they are no longer slaves, and I think there are some that are thankful for their many blessings here in America. Is it, perhaps, the case that you do not like how they charge white people with immorality for perpetuating their slavery? I am not sure how you can object to this unless you think white people should not be charged with immorality, or if you think white people deserve some credit for the many blessings that black people have.

I really do wonder if you have some hidden or suppressed animosity towards black people given some of the things you post on this site.

(2) But Hegel didn’t “contradict Scripture” as to the specific thesis presented here. The problems with his biblical anthropology would apply as much to his analysis of Aryans as Africans. The mistake there does not wipe out all of his very valid observations about civilizations.

As to (3), if you concede (as you seem to) that being brought to America was a great providential improvement in the lot of those Negroes that made it, and their descendants, for which they should daily thank God, then you have granted everything important that I wished to get across on that aspect of the subject.