God's Political Order

Contemporary politics are dominated by ideological fights. Republicans are capitalists, Democrats are socialists, the Soviet Union was communist, America is democratic, Iran is theocratic, and most everyone claims to be ethnically pluralistic.

What is God?

God has revealed his will for humanity in two ways: his revelation, and his created order. What do they tell us about God’s politics?


I would contend God has revealed his political order for humanity in three fundamental realities: (1) Religion, (2) Sex, (3) Ethnos.

(1) God’s religious expectations need little explanation. If a nation wants to be pleasing to God it must worship him, follow his moral ethic, and infuse his values into society. Most of the Old Testament deals with one nation’s struggle to remain godly.

Religion is innate to man. Religion shapes man's mind, and either limits or expands him. A society's spitit is in its religion, and that spirit can either be life giving energy or a deadly cancer.

(2) God’s sexual expectations have been severely neglected. God created men to humbly lead with courage, and put others before themselves. Women are expected to have children and nurture them. [1] The suicidal birth rates of modern Europe and Japan should be enough for humanity to realize that fertility is a monumental political issue. Demography is destiny. No nation can survive if its women do not give birth. The women’s role is existential.

The two sexes complement one another. Neither can survive without the other. Both need the other to fulfill their God given role.

(3) Finally, ethnicity and family form a genetic reality of God’s designed order.

Genesis 10 chronicles the development of human families into vast ethno-political groups. Whether the Bible describes Egypt, Israel, or Babylon, it begins with a common ancestor. God cares about blood connection.

The Old Testament follows the course of one man’s family, the Nation of Israel, as they march through history struggling to maintain their political and religious liberty. The Israelites defined their identity by blood ancestry traced back to common family members.


Ethnicity is extended family. [2] People are more closely related to members of their own ethnic group than to members of a different ethnic group. This is genetic reality.

Nowhere does the Bible refer to a multiethnic state as a nation. Ethnic pluralism was unheard of. God organizes man into natural nations; clans of blood relatives.

Acts 17:26 states: “[God] 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 habitation.”

The word translated “nation” is the Greek word “ethnos” from which we derive our term “ethnicity.”

In miniature, these nations are nuclear families, and nuclear families make up the smallest form of political organization God created. In practice, these families expand into ever larger groups who form the core of broader political creations like the nation-state of Israel; a geopolitical organization formed by common blood and heritage.

Nowhere in the Bible did God create, or endorse the creation of, any geopolitical entity besides the ethnic state.

All humanity is descended from “one blood,” but all cousins are descended from the same grandparents, and yet, each is expected to favor immediate siblings and parents over their cousins. Loyalty is owed in proportion to shared genetics.

If it is morally permissible for humanity to organize itself by family, it is also morally permissible for humanity to organize itself by ethnicity. Ethnicity is extended family.

At the Tower of Babel, God forced humanity apart when they sought to avoid ethnic fragmentation and division. God intended different nations to form. It is his genetic design.

Unity of humanity under anything but Christ is rebellion against God. The pluralistic plan, to unite all ethnicities and religious groups through globalism, pluralism, secularism, corporatism, and democracy, represents a new Tower of Babel. An attempt to undermine God’s created order and subvert the only unity he has chosen to establish.


Science has confirmed God’s intention to organize humanity by genetically distinct ethnic groups.

Pierre L. van den Berghe, professor emeritus of sociology and anthropology at the University of Washington, summed up the genetic similarity principle when he wrote:
“The degree of cooperation between organisms can be expected to be a direct function of the proportion of the genes they share; conversely, the degree of conflict between them is an inverse function of the proportion of shared genes.” [3]
This principle holds true across the animal kingdom. Even vegetation follows the rule. In one study, it was found plants recognize and cooperate with their siblings:
“Susan Dudley, an evolutionary plant ecologist at McMaster University in Hamilton, Ontario, and her colleagues observed that when siblings are grown next to each other in the soil, they ‘play nice’ and don’t send out more roots to compete with one another. However, the moment one of the plants is thrown in with strangers, it begins competing with them by rapidly growing more roots to take up the water and mineral nutrients in the soil.” [4]
J. Phillip Rushton of the University of Western Ontario observed that, “Genetically similar people tend to seek one another out, and to provide mutually supportive environments such as marriage, friendship, and social groups.” [5]

Studies suggest children are born biased towards their own ethnic group. Research from the University of Delaware demonstrated that infants already prefer members of their own ethnic group by the age of three months. By nine months, researchers concluded babies were less able to remember the faces of people who did not belong to their ethnicity. [6]

Other studies have found humans become more anxious when interacting with members of another ethnic group. [7]

In particularly shocking research, it was discovered that people of European descent empathize less with the pain of Afroethnics than they do with that of their own people. When shown pictures of a dark African hand being pricked with a needle, their bodies did not register nearly as much anxiety as when they were shown a Euroethnic hand being pricked. This phenomenon is referred to as the “empathy gap.” [8]

Ingrained biological tendencies to favor one’s own genetic relative’s produces social situations that render people less likely to create functional societies with members of other ethnic groups.

After extensive study, Harvard researcher Robert Putnam observed:
“inhabitants of diverse communities tend to withdraw from collective life, distrust their neighbors, regardless of the color of their skin, to withdraw even from close friends, to expect the worst from their community and its leaders, to volunteer less, to give less to charity and work on community projects less, to agitate for social reform more, but have less faith that they can actually make a difference, and to huddle unhappily in frot of the television.” [9]
Putnam’s description of diverse communities does not sound like a recipe for functional political organization. According to Putnam, the proximity of ethnically different people is enough to cause close friends to distrust one another.

Through his creation, and revealed word, God has made his political designs clear.

Every human society would benefit by accepting God’s three fold political organization (religion, gender, ethnos). In reverse, every human society will suffer if it rebels against it.

No atheistic society has ever survived, no low fertility society has survived, and no ethnically pluralistic society has ever survived. Rebellion against God’s politics brings social decline.

During America’s dramatic nineteenth century rise to power, American law was founded upon Christian principals, American women had high birth rates, and the American people were united by common Euroethnic blood.

The farther America has drifted from Christianity, natural gender roles, and ethnic unity, the faster it has become decadent and dysfunctional.


What about the ideological questions? What about the debate between socialism and capitalism? Or democracy and monarchy?

Answer: These ideologies are human inventions; secondary systems worthy of being discussed only after the important issues of identity are resolved. These human creations are worth little when compared to the religious, ethnic, and gender issues which dominate the underlying foundations of society.

Capitalist ideologues argue that socialism is economically degenerate, and that it results in laziness and dependence upon government. But if this is true, why are the socialist states of Sweden, Norway, and Denmark more prosperous and healthy than free market America? These socialist states have some of the most productive labor markets in the world, lowest unemployment rates, and (according to surveys and indexes) rank among the happiest countries to live.

If capitalism fosters entrepreneurialism and prosperity why are some of the freest markets on earth also the poorest and most crime ridden (for example, Haiti)?

If democracy is superior to dictatorship why was Iraq more successful under tyranny than its new American democratic government? It took less than a decade for Iraq to disintegrate after the fall of its autocrat. The same could be said for Syria. The weakening of the Assad family plunged the country into anarchy and violence.

If monarchy does not work how did the Western world rise to preeminence under its oversight?

There may be a time for republicanism, a time for socialism, a time for monarchy, a time for capitalism. All these concepts contain fragments of truth which, applied at the right moment, may produce good results. To place our hopes in these human ideologies, however, is to mislead ourselves. All human inventions fail. No man devised system will be universally effective.

Humanity must lay down its pride and accept the fundamental tools of organization which God has given it. Only in these will mankind find stability and success.

Will a nation need many laws if it upholds the Christian moral ethic? Can a nation be corrupted if its men humbly and courageously lead? If women bare and nurture a nation’s heirs will its future be in doubt?

Community trust will rise if people are surrounded by their own kin. Cooperation will flourish. Neighborly generosity will flow naturally.

Who is man to direct his own steps? Is God’s organization not enough?


If America wants a republic, the elders should be the ones to vote. A man qualified to lead the church is qualified for enfranchisement.

In Titus 1, Paul gave Timothy the qualifications for an elder:
“This is why I left you in Crete, so that you might put what remained into order, and appoint elders in every town as I directed you— if anyone is above reproach, the husband of one wife and his children are believers and not open to the charge of debauchery or insubordination. For an overseer as God’s steward, must be above reproach. He must not be arrogant or quick-tempered or a drunkard or violent or greedy for gain, but hospitable, a lover of good, self-controlled, upright, holy, and disciplined. He must hold firm to the trustworthy word as taught, so that he may be able to give instruction in sound doctrine and also to rebuke those who contradict it.”
Perfect voting qualifications. If all voters were elders people would trust their leaders.

It should be men of good character who vote in elections. Men who have children. Men whose vote will affect their children’s futures.


[1] Titus 2:1-5: “Train the young women to love their husbands and children, to be self-controlled, pure, working at home, kind, and submissive to their own husbands, that the word of God may not be reviled.”

[2] Sailer, Steve. “Steve Sailer, 1998: ‘A Race is an Extremely Extended Family.’” isteve. May, 2014. Accessed December 11,2015. isteve.blogspot.com/2014/05/steve-sailer-1998-race-is-extremely.html.
EXTRACT: “The reason that defining Fulanis and Ibo as belonging to separate races is ridiculous is because the true definition of races is not built on any particular trait, it’s built on ancestry. We all intuitively know that Fulanis and Ibos are more racially similar with each other because they have more recent ancestors in common with each other than they do with Norwegians or Japanese. Race starts with boy meets girl, followed by baby. It’s important to note that the standard critique of the concept of ‘race’ — nobody can agree on their number, name, or precise constituents — applies even more so to the concept of ‘extended family.’ Yet nobody doubts the reality of extended families…. Now the crucial step is point out that the reason extended families provide such perfect analogies for races is because they are actually the same thing. A RACE IS SIMPLY AN EXTREMELY EXTENDED FAMILY. Why are extended families even fuzzier than races? Or, to put it another way, why are races more coherent, cohesive and longer lasting than extended families? The difference stems from the degree of outmarriage (exogamy).”

[3] Van Den Berghe, Pierre. “The Ethnic Principle.” Page: 7. (Via Jared Taylor’s "White Identity").

[4] Dudley, Susan. “Plants Can Recognize and Prefer Their Kin.” Windstar. Accessed December 11, 2015. http://www.zoominfo.com/CachedPage/?archive_id=0&page_id=-1281477823&page_url=//www.windstar.org/knowledge_center_article.cfm?articleID=446&page_last_updated=2010-03-31T20:08:49&firstName=Susan&lastName=Dudley.

[5] Rushton, Phillipe. “Race, Evolution, and Behavior: a Life History Perspective.” Page: 69 (1995). (Via Jared Taylor’s “White Identity”).

[6] Zolfagharifard, Ellie. “Is Your baby racist? Scientists discover a way to reverse racial bias in young children.” Daily Mail. August, 2015. Accessed December 11, 2015. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-3209554/Is-baby-racist-Scientists-discover-way-reverse-racial-bias-young-children.html.
EXTRACT: “At six months, Quinn said, the infants were classifying faces into three groups – Caucasian, African and Asian. He has found that, by nine months of age, infants not only distinguish racial categories but also become less able to tell different individuals apart if they are members of a less-familiar race. For example, white infants can identify white faces as belonging to different individuals, but they are less likely to see Asian or African faces as distinct individuals…. Babies 15 months show racial bias when picking playmates… And the babies are more likely to help those who share the same ethnicity, which is known as in-group bias when people favour those with the same characteristics as oneself.”

Sommerville, Jessica. “Babies Prefer Fairness — but Only If It Benefits Them — in Choosing a Playmate.” ScienceDaily. April 1, 2014. Accessed November 19, 2015. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/04/140414134051.htm.
EXCERPT: “Babies as young as 15 months preferred people with the same ethnicity as themselves — a phenomenon known as in-group bias, or favoring people who have the same characteristics as oneself.”
EXCERPT FROM ORIGINAL STUDY: “Caucasian infants’ social selections varied as a function of the race of the recipient advantaged by the unfair distributor. Specifically, infants were more likely to select the fair distributor when the unfair recipient advantaged the Asian (versus the Caucasian) recipient. These findings provide evidence that infant’s select social partners on the basis of prior fair behavior and that infants also take into account the race of distributors and recipients when making their social selections.”

[7] Trawalter, Sophie, Jennifer Richeson. “Let’s talk about race, Baby! When Whites’ and Blacks’ interracial contact experiences diverge.” Journal of Experimental Social Psychology. March, 2008. Accessed December 11, 2015. http://groups.psych.northwestern.edu/spcl/documents/YJESP_2075.pdf.
EXERPT: “…we examined the non-verbal behavior of white and Black participants during brief interpersonal interactions. Consistent with previous research, white participants behaved more anxiously during interracial than same-race interactions. Additionally, white participants of interracial interaction behaved more anxiously than their black interaction partners. Furthermore, whereas white participants of interracial interactions found race-related discussions no more stressful than race-neutral discussions, black participants of interracial interactions found race-related discussions less stressful than race-neutral discussions.”

[8] Forgiarini, Matteo, Marcello Gallucci, Angelo Maravita. “Racism and the Empathy for Pain on Our Skin.” Frontiers in Psychology. May, 2011. Accessed December 11, 2015. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3108582/.
ABSTRACT: “Empathy is a critical function regulating human social life. In particular, empathy for pain is a source of deep emotional feelings and a strong trigger of pro-social behavior. We investigated the existence of a racial bias in the emotional reaction to other people’s pain and its link with implicit racist biases. Measuring participants’ physiological arousal, we found that Caucasian observers reacted to pain suffered by African people significantly less than to pain of Caucasian people. The reduced reaction to the pain of African individuals was also correlated with the observers’ individual implicit race bias. The role of others’ race in moderating empathic reactions is a crucial clue for understanding to what extent social interactions, and possibly integration, may be influenced by deeply rooted automatic and uncontrollable responses.”

[9] Putnam, Robert. “E Pluribus Unum: Diversity and Community in the Twenty-first Century The 2006 Johan Skytte Prize Lecture.” Wiley Online Library. June 1, 2007. Accessed November 19, 2015. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1467-9477.2007.00176.x/abstract.