Who Is My Neighbor? - A Sober Response, Plus Thoughts on Natural Affection

Some thoughts on the "Encyclopedia of Natural Relations" and why most of the discourse surrounding this volume is worthless

Western Front Books has recently put out a second edition of their “Encyclopedia of Natural Relations” entitled “Who is My Neighbor?”

This volume has made quite a stir on social media over the past few days along with the “debates” (more like food-fights) concerning the supposed “woke right” movement, a term I have never used. The Christian Nationalist/Dissident right/Ascendant right crowd (or whatever they are calling themselves these days) tout the book as a bulwark of massive proportion to fight back against the post-war consensus which has poisoned the minds of the American masses. Critics like Joel Berry see this book as a 500 page volume of despicable racism.

In other words, the conversation surrounding this publication has been about as useful as a screw with no head.

But what actually is going on here, and why should we care?

The original edition of Who is My Neighbor? was edited by Thomas Accord, a former podcasting host alongside Stephen Wolfe, author of The Case for Christian Nationalism. Thomas Accord has made himself a controversial individual, due to an anonymous Twitter account that was discovered to be his. His account had posted numerous remarks demonstrating the man’s basic disdain of Jews, referring to a black woman as a Ngress and other odd things that I don’t need to mention. This controversy has been discussed at length, and it is not my point here to rehash what has already been said ad nauseum. Whatever one makes of his anonymous tweets, Stephen Wolfe found it necessary to distance himself (publicly) from Accord for a while, however they have since appeared on a podcast together.

This second edition is noticeably absent of any mention of Accord and simply refers to anonymous editors.

Now what, exactly, is this book? The bulk of it is a collection of quotes throughout the ages on the topic of natural relations, specifically comments from various thinkers (Christian and pagan) concerning race, nation and ethnic identity. The preface states, “We have striven as much as possible to put forth the voice of others rather than ourselves”. This goal seems adequately accomplished, as editorial commentary is minimal, and the vast majority of what you will encounter is simply citations (sometimes taking up an entire page) where relevant topics are being discussed.

That’s pretty much all there is to it. There is an introduction that states the editor’s purpose, to show “that humans have preferences and prejudices in favor of their own people, in nearness by nature and place, and in likeness to themselves; and that they tend to form particular social orders, with duties, loyalties, and bonds around these shared natural affinities”, but for the most part this book holds itself out to be a scholarly resource on a taboo topic, and in my view is a valuable one. I might disagree with the applications made by the editors, but the book itself is just a data dump.

Some Context

Because of the fact that this book was not released in a vacuum, but rather in the real world where all other sorts of conversations are taking place, consider for a moment the controversy surrounding this publication.

It would require an amazing level of dishonesty, or ignorance, to deny that social media has seen a massive rise in ethnic animus (commonly known as racism) and Jew-hate amongst those of the “dissident right”. Very often, this hateful rhetoric is dressed up to look like Christian virtue. Popular Christian Nationalist influencers will do entire podcasts discussing Haitian IQs, and though they bend over backwards to explain that they themselves are not racist, or do not harbor any malice against those of a differing ethnicity, a quick survey through their comments, or replies, demonstrates that a large number of their followers have no problem in expressing disgust towards Jews and blacks. How many times have you seen Adolf Hitler being praised by “Christians” online this past year?

It is these kinds of people, right here, who have been the most supportive of Who is My Neighbor?, seeing the book as a vindication that their sinful feelings are nothing more than the universal views of the whole of western history.

On the other hand, the pushback against this crowd, and even the publication of the book, has been quite honestly embarrassing. The most vocal critic of the book is Joel Berry, managing editor of the Babylon Bee. Berry rightly (in my opinion) sees an issue with the rhetoric of those whom he calls “woke right”, but the way he combats it is faulty. Berry seems to want to squash out and eradicate any concept racial distinctions in favor of a radical egalitarianism. This notion is absurd. Berry wants to define ethnicity as nothing more than the level of melanin in one’s skin, and nation as nothing more than a set of propositions one can choose (or not choose) to assent to. But this kind of thing is historically novel, and in my view denies the way in which God has created this world. It has, generally, been the case in western history that nation and ethnicity are tied in with each other. A nation, or an ethnoi, is a distinct people, with a shared heritage, land, culture and religion (see my article on God’s plan and purpose for nations here).

And so in an attempt to destroy the evil of racism, men like Berry want to put another evil in its place—the evil of radical egalitarianism tied with proposition nationhood.

Now I have tried, on numerous occasions, to engage these conversations online, but it has been my experience that there is nothing on this earth less fruitful than discussing race online. Most people I have encountered from the dissident right seem to be utterly incapable of comprehending the fact that anyone other than an open-borders globalist would condemn what it is they are saying. People online seem to only be able to deal in absolutes. In their minds, you are either a white-supremacist or a total liberal. They don’t seem to understand that recognizing race as a very real thing doesn’t mean you have to start harboring animosity against other races. Ironically, there chief opponents like Berry make the same mistake. They also can’t comprehend that someone could say “racial distinctions are real” without also being a closeted racist with a swastika tattoo.

Suffice to say, I have been increasingly burdened over the fact that very few voices have been able to offer sober, Christian responses to these questions. In my opinion, this is a vital topic that absolutely needs to be addressed, but it needs to be addressed by someone without either an Israeli flag or 1183 in their bio. And so, I decided to get the book for myself.

Going Into the Book

Now, to be completely honest I went into the book expecting to find it very vanilla. I didn’t expect to find anything overly shocking, despite what online discourse would have you believe. This is probably because of the fact that I already do a lot of historical reading (mostly in church history), and so I was already quite familiar with what men like Augustine or Calvin had to say about these topics.

I will not sit here and pretend that I have actually read every single quote in this book, but I have read many. The authors that interested me most were early Church fathers, but I also took the time to read from the Greek Philosophers, reformers, puritans and even the founding fathers of my nation, America. And what I found was basically what I anticipated, expressions of the fact that men tend to show affection to things familiar, such as their countrymen, and that they have a duty to work for the good of their nation above others. Even more controversial figures like Robert Lewis Dabney amount to saying little more than this.

Here is an example of this kind of thinking from Charles Spurgeon on page 398:

“Piety must begin at home as well as charity. Conversion should begin with those who are nearest to us in ties of relationship. I stir you up, not to be attempting missionary labors for India, not to be casting eyes of pity across to Africa, not to be occupied so much with tears for popish and heathen lands, as for your own children, your own flesh and blood, your own acquaintance. Lift up your cry to heaven for them, and then afterwards you shall preach among the nations.”

Now, obviously, Spurgeon does not condemn foreign missions, as the Calvinistic Baptists were foremost in this very practice. But what he is addressing is that there is something wrong with the kind of person whose heart is more concerned with those in a far off land, than those faces nearest to him. There is an allegiance, in Spurgeon’s mind, to one’s own nation that has to come before other nations. This sentiment is found throughout this volume from numerous writers across the centuries. Ironically, in a book which deals with racial distinctions, it demonstrates that a commonality amongst all races (historically) has been a duty to one’s own nation before others.

Unfortunately, this sentiment (which is good and right) is what is being used as justification for actual racially-based hatred of others. But because of the fact that this book is simply quotes, we can use the book to demonstrate that this kind of attitude was not historically accepted by Christians. Take note of these words of John Calvin, found on page 91:

“But I say: we ought to embrace the whole human race without exception in a single feeling of love; here there is no distinction between barbarian and Greek, worthy and unworthy, friend and enemy, since all should be contemplated in God, not in themselves.”

Now I found this statement particularly amazing, because if the same exact thing were said by James White or Douglas Wilson today, the replies would be filled with people mocking them as embracing the PWC, and supposedly reading Colossians 3:11 as an egalitarian. But brother Calvin saw it appropriate, in light of Scriptural teaching, to say that while we have a particular affection for our own nation (see page 92) we are to have a general love for men of all nations, as is fitting for a Christian. John Calvin’s views on this subject aren’t “woke right” and they’re not egalitarian either, they are basic and Christian.

Ordo Amoris

A little while ago, thanks to our Vice President, the concept of Ordo Amoris (order of love) was trending on X. It is an ethical concept that can be traced back to the writings of Augustine, although I commented at the time that I doubted very few people commenting on the subject had ever read a word he said about it. The principle has obviously had diverse and varied understandings throughout the centuries, but essentially for Augustine, he believed that you had a responsibility to love and care for those whom you were Providentially able to. I shared some quotes from his On Christian Doctrine and was glad to see them printed in this book as well. As one example, these words from Augustine are reprinted on page 36:

“All men are to be loved equally. But since you cannot do good to all, you are to pay special regard to those who, by the accidents of time, or place, or circumstance, are brought into closer connection with you.”

Augustine’s views on this topic are not rooted in some kind of racial supremacy. His point is that, if you live in North Africa (as he did) you have a greater duty before God to do good to North Africans than you do Germanic peoples. All are to be loved equally, he says, but you cannot possibly love all in the same way.

The Bible tells us we are to have a particular concern for his relatives and members of our own household (1 Timothy 5:8). In God’s design, it is our responsibility to do good for these people first. I have a unique duty to honor my father, as opposed to other people’s fathers.

Is There Anything I Find Distasteful?

Obviously, due to the nature of a book of quotes from a wide variety of authors, there are going to be things I don’t agree with. To the credit of the editors, they strive to show this diversity of opinion, even including folks like Karl Marx who wanted to obliterate any idea of racial distinction.

Because the book doesn’t necessarily have a thesis, I can’t be critical of the book, per se, but I can be critical of those promoting it.

Take Stephen Wolfe, for example. It appears to me that Stephen Wolfe is utterly unconcerned with any notion that the Bible would have anything to say to change our beliefs about natural relations. “Grace doesn’t erase nature” he says, letting his Thomism show. On page 449, Wolfe is quoted as saying:

“People of different ethnic groups can exercise respect for difference, conduct some routine business with each other, join in inter-ethnic alliances for mutual good, and exercise humanity (e.g., the good Samaritan), but they cannot have a life together that goes beyond mutual alliance”

Now, to his credit, Wolfe may very well be able to show us many people in western history who have held this view. But there is not a case to be made that this was the universal view of the west, or church history. And certainly this view falls short of the Biblical picture. It is God’s intention to bring a unity and harmony amongst all nations that goes far beyond mutual alliance. This doesn’t mean we need to work towards a one-world government, open up all borders and eradicate racial distinctions. Because in Christ, racially distinct men can have unity with one another while still holding on to a preference for their own cultural norms.

In my view, this is where an author like Rushdoony is very helpful. He recognizes the reality of race and racial distinctions. He strongly opposes radical egalitarianism, but he also (because of the Bible) sees that the Gospel brings a harmony amongst men and women of varying races.

For a fuller treatment on my views concerning how this is, I encourage readers to read my article Rise and Fall of the Nations (link here).

Closing Thoughts

In conclusion, most of the drama around this book is really overblown. It is a book of quotes that can be used with great profit for students who want a historically well-rounded take on the issue of racial distinctions and natural relations. Because of the unhinged statements concerning its original editor, some may be inclined not to purchase simply out of a desire not to financially support those whom they deem problematic.

It was my desire here to give some thoughtful commentary on it all without being given to emotion, ideology or tribalism. It is my sincere prayer that Christians will work towards having a clearer understanding of these issues. I am thankful for guys like Jon Harris, even in spite of our disagreements concerning issues of natural law, I think he has been the most reasonable voice in this entire conversation, and I have learned much from him.