Dale Partridge

I believe men and women are equal in dignity and worth before God, but distinct by His design. I hold to biblical patriarchy: the loving headship of husbands and fathers, who are called to lead, protect, and provide for their households. According to Scripture, men are the heads of their homes and serve as their families' representatives before God, the church, and the state.

God's order extends beyond differing roles. Men and women are distinct in their very nature, not merely in their responsibilities. Masculinity and femininity are fixed biological realities established by God, not interchangeable identities constructed by culture. Nature determines identity, and identity informs activity. In other words, what we are by God's design should shape how we live, what we pursue, and the responsibilities we embrace.

I have a wonderful wife and daughter, and my desire is for them to flourish as women—feminine, honored, protected, and living in accordance with the purpose for which God created them. Biblical patriarchy does not diminish women; properly practiced, it recognizes their indispensable place in God's design for the family and society.

Furthermore, the survival of a nation depends upon the survival of the home, and the home cannot flourish without women at its center (Titus 2:3-5). This is why, throughout history, men have gone to war. They were not merely fighting for lines on a map, but to defend their wives, children, and households—the very foundations of civilization.

I believe a society flourishes when men embrace their nature as men and women embrace their nature as women. Neither sex needs to become like the other to possess dignity, purpose, or honor before God.

I am not opposed to immigration in principle. However, my position on immigration is rooted in Scripture, not modern political categories. I believe the Bible provides a framework for understanding nations, borders, migration, and the responsibilities of a people to preserve their national identity.

My starting point is Genesis 10, commonly called the Table of Nations. Following the flood, God established distinct peoples according to their ancestry, languages, lands, and nations (Genesis 10:5, 20, 31–32). This distinction is reaffirmed in Deuteronomy 32:8 and Acts 17:26, which teach that God appointed the boundaries and dwelling places of nations. I therefore believe nations are legitimate, God-ordained communities with a responsibility to preserve their continuity, culture, and inherited identity.

The Old Testament also provides examples of foreigners being welcomed into Israel, but within a defined religious and legal order. Foreigners were not free to overturn Israel's laws, introduce idolatrous worship, or allow such rapid immigration that would lead to demographic replacement. Those who joined the covenant community were expected to assimilate to its obligations and religious identity.

Applying these principles today, I view the United States as a nation historically shaped by European civilization and Christianity. I believe immigration should be limited to those with similar ancestry, deliberate, and ordered toward preserving our national European continuity.

Christ calls me to love all people. Every person, regardless of race, nation, or ethnicity, is created in the image of God and possesses intrinsic dignity and worth.

My theological understanding of racial distinctions is rooted in Genesis 9–11, particularly the account of Noah's three sons: Shem, Ham, and Japheth. I hold to a historical interpretation that understands humanity as one mankind, with three broad racial divisions descending from Noah's sons. Within this framework, I also understand Noah's prophecy in Genesis 9:20–27 as having implications for the distinct historical and civilizational purposes of their descendants.

I recognize that this is a highly nuanced and sensitive theological subject, and that my interpretation, which was the ecclesiastical and historical understanding for nearly two-thousand years, is not popular among most modern theologians. Because liberalism and egalitarianism have infiltrated both society and the church, this topic cannot be adequately understood through isolated quotations, short clips, or simplified accusations. I encourage those genuinely interested in understanding the historical position to examine the full argument. Lord willing, I plan to publish God's Design for Nations in 2027, which will present this theological framework in greater detail.

To be clear, I love all people—including Black people—and desire their salvation and flourishing in Christ. I regularly pray for the people and nations of Africa, that the Gospel would advance, that their families and churches would flourish, and that strong Christian societies would be established among their ethnicities to the glory of God.

My position is based on Genesis 10, which describes nations by ancestry, languages, and lands. The word nation derives from the Latin natio, which means birth and common origin. It's also the root for words like native, natal, natural, and nation. Therefore, a nation implies a shared ancestry; throughout history, and still across much of the world today, nations have been understood as the largest extension of an ethnic or racial family.

During the first American Congressional gathering, the Naturalization Act of 1790 restricted eligibility for naturalization to "free white persons," reflecting the racial qualifications of American citizenship law. The Fourteenth Amendment, ratified in 1868, subsequently established a constitutional guarantee of birthright citizenship for persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to its jurisdiction.

Racial restrictions on naturalization were gradually dismantled, with the remaining racial eligibility requirements eliminated in 1952. The Hart–Celler Act of 1965, also known as the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965, then abolished the national-origins quota system that had favored immigration from northern and western Europe. This fundamentally changed the biblical framework governing immigration to the United States and contributed to significant long-term changes in the country's demographic composition.

Ultimately, I disagree with modern civic definitions of nationhood that treat ancestry as irrelevant.

I am not antisemitic, nor am I opposed to the concept of Jewish Zionism in Israel. My primary objection is theological, specifically directed against dispensationalism, which I argue in my book The Israel Delusion has incorrectly led many Christians to view Judaism as a sister faith to Christianity. I believe both the Old and New Testaments are explicitly Christian and find their fulfillment in Jesus Christ, and that Judaism, in rejecting Jesus as the Messiah, departs from that fulfillment.

While I reject and oppose the physical persecution of Jewish people, I believe certain Jewish individuals and organizations have exercised a morally corrosive influence within Western media, finance, pornography, and politics. My objections concern the particular actions, ideas, and institutions I criticize, rather than an assumption that Jewish people collectively bear responsibility for them.

From a nationalist perspective, I also believe that historically Christian nations should preserve their religious and cultural identity and maintain political independence from outside interests—including Jewish interests. Politically, Israel has a sovereign homeland for the Jewish people; it is my view that their civic, cultural, and political influence should be exercised within their own nation rather than within non-Jewish nations.

I flatly reject the "racist" label. It is a tactical slur meant to eliminate objective judgment altogether (particularly among White people). There is a vast difference between unjust prejudice and what I discuss in my writing, which is natural ancestral preference, or "familyism." I do not harbor hatred toward anyone based on skin color; rather, I look at the world with open eyes, recognizing clear genetic, cultural, religious, and behavioral patterns. Preferring your own people and adjusting your behavior based on statistical reality is a matter of survival and social trust, both of which are entirely aligned with ordinary human nature.

When it comes to whether I am a "White Supremacist," it depends entirely on what you mean by that term. If we are talking about tangible metrics like Nobel Prizes, lower crime rates, or higher IQs, then yes, I acknowledge Whites are superior in those particular categories. If we're talking about the N.B.A. or Jazz music, then no, I acknowledge that Blacks are superior in those particular categories. And if we are talking about moral superiority before God, absolutely not. Before God, no group holds superiority over another; all of us are fallen sinners equally in need of forgiveness and grace in Jesus Christ.

Ultimately, my goal is to take the emotion out of these terms. If you hate someone just because of the color of their skin, that is evil. You must repent. But if you notice statistical reality, have ancestral preferences, or see measurable superiorities and inferiorities among different people groups and then order your life according to that information without hate in your heart—you are acting out of ordinary social and biological prudence. Refusing to ignore reality and distinctions does not make you a hateful person; it makes you an observant one.

My theological position on marriage is rooted in Genesis 9–11, particularly the Table of Nations in Genesis 10. While the Bible demonstrates that there is ultimately one mankind, it also establishes three primary ancestral (racial) branches descending from the sons of Noah: Shem (the lineage of Arabs and Jews), Ham (the lineage of Africans and Indians), and Japheth (the lineage of Europeans and certain Asian populations). From each of these three macro-races stem hundreds of ethnicities and thousands of cultures. Because of the distinct providential differences bestowed upon these three sons, each branch carries a unique civilizational purpose. Consequently, I believe we should not confuse or dilute these distinct providential outcomes by mixing between these three macro-races.

Within this framework, I believe God providentially established distinct peoples, nations, and ancestral lineages, and that marriage ordinarily occurs within these inherited communities. I do not believe interracial marriage is inherently sinful, nor do I believe it should be illegal. However, I generally discourage it because I believe shared ancestry, language, culture, and customs contribute to familial continuity, marital harmony, and national coherency. I also believe this is a means of honoring your father and mother by preserving the familial and ancestral inheritance entrusted to you. It also reflects, in principle, the wisdom of being equally yoked—not only in Christ, which is essential, but also in shared ancestry, familial identity, racial purpose, and generational continuity. Interethnic marriages can also introduce cultural differences, but I distinguish those challenges from the racial distinctions discussed in my broader theological framework.

For those who have questioned my own marriage, my marriage is interethnic, not interracial. My wife, Veronica Partridge, is majority Italian by ancestry, followed by Spanish, with a minority of Mexican ancestry. Some people mistakenly assume that her Sicilian-tanned skin means she is primarily Hispanic and constitutes a separate race; however, Hispanic is an ethnic or cultural designation, not a race. There are White Hispanics of European ancestry and Black Hispanics of African ancestry. In fact, the Spanish language (from Spain) is a White European language. My wife is racially White, as am I, despite our different ethnic backgrounds. Therefore, our marriage is interethnic, not interracial.

Ultimately, I believe marriage is more than a private romantic relationship between two individuals. It is a generational covenant that joins families, carries forward an inheritance, and shapes the identity of future descendants. Despite the liberal narrative of interracial marriage across our media, I believe Christians must consider shared ancestry, culture, and family continuity when choosing a spouse. I recognize that faithful interracial marriages exist and can be blessed by God, and I do not question the dignity or Christian standing of those couples. Nevertheless, my conviction remains that interracial marriage is permissible, but generally not advisable or biblically normative.