The So-Called “Weak” and “Strong” Kinists…

I’ve always objected to the “weak” and “strong” Kinist designation.

(It was Gen5 who started it over on his blog).

Aside from the quibbles we might offer about the factual accuracy of Gen5′s observations of Kinist ideological diversity[1], the “weak / strong” distinction forces Kinists to define ourselves according to how our opponents view us. Our opponents see “race mixing” as *THE* central and offensive issue at the heart of their disagreement with Kinists. So, it might be beneficial for them to distinguish between Kinists who think mixing is a sin (“Strong” Kinists) and those who say it’s only a bad idea (the so-called “weak” Kinists).[2]

But this is a faulty view of Kinism and makes it seem like race-mixing is the defining issue of our position. We shouldn’t let opponents determine what the “strong” versions are and what the “weak” versions are.

Consider the following analogy:

An atheist supports abortion and a Christian opposes. They decide to debate the issue. What will they debate? Well, ultimately, the disagreement will come down to their different ethical philosophies. The Atheist might appeal to some form of materialistic utilitarianism, while the Christian appeals to objective moral norms. So, the debate (as it turns out) isn’t over abortion at all, but rather, over larger ideological disagreements.

The same is true if a liberal debates a Kinist about race-mixing. What will they debate about? In the end, the debate will focus on different philosophies of social order. The liberal will appeal to Enlightenment and jacobin forms of social order, while the Kinist appeals to tribalism.

Imagine someone claiming there’s a distinction between “weak” Christians and “strong” Christians – weak Christians only think abortion is a bad idea, while strong Christians claim it’s always a sin.  Such a distinction completely misses the scope of Christian theology.  The same is true for Kinism.

So why not define “weak” Kinism as someone who believes that tribalist social order is (at best) a good ideal, while “strong” Kinists claim that it’s the God-ordained and normative way of organizing society?  That, in my view, would strike closer to the heart of what Kinists actually believe.[3]


[1] I haven’t noticed any clear and routinely articulated distinctions among Kinists like the ones Gen5 suggests.  If anything, those who hold to (what he calls) “weak” Kinism, usually don’t claim to be Kinists at all.  They’ll say things like – “I’m not a Kinist, but… I think those guys have some good ideas!”  I encounter this sort of jargon on an almost daily basis.

[2]  Or, it might be beneficial for someone with Kinist leanings but who is, nevertheless, unwilling to alienate himself from polite society?  The distinction would separate such a person from those who are perceived as “more radical” and less apt to gain acceptance in Satania.

On another note – the distinctions Gen5 draws are ambiguous, leaving me to wonder which of the categories I actually fall into.  Who knows?  Given how Gen5 has laid out the categories, we might have to shift self-labels according to whatever particular situation we find ourselves in.  This ties in with my main gripe about the distinctions – that they’re not accurate ways of slicing up Kinism, and if utilized, present a false view of what we are actually concerned about.

[3] I’m not in favor of dividing up Kinists into “weak” and “strong” anyway … but if we’re going to do it, don’t do it according to a non-Kinist rubric.

Round Eye Dares Correct a Minority … Part II


I’m going to continue my critique a few paragraphs down from where I left off, but don’t worry, there’s no-ting-wong.  The paragraphs I skipped didn’t seem immediately relevant.  So, let’s whistle the Asian riff as we dive into part II of my critique of Lue-Yee Tsang’s recent anti-Kinist article…

Multiculturalists worship at the altar of the modern (super)state; kinists fail to honour the mission of Christ to unite all peoples in his gospel.

I don’t suppose a few examples would be out of the question, eh Mr. Tsang?

I’d love to know how Kinists, with all our advocacy of Postmillennial Kingdom victory, are failing to honor the mission of Christ.  Apparently, Tsang thinks “uniting all peoples” means:  mixing everyone into a mocha-colored propositional bowl and applauding the resulting sludge.

The former overestimate the breadth of their human selves, but the latter underestimate the breadth of their communion on earth with folk of other cultures. For nothing but Christ, the image of the invisible God, can bring the human race together at the basic level of its humanity; but the will of God the Father will be done in earth as it is in heaven.

Here, we see Tsang’s ambiguity.

Is it *belief* in Christian propositions that will “bring the human race together” or is it God’s direct action?

This entire paragraph is pseudo-pious garble…

What is done in this life, in this age, will not be perfect; but the perfect virtues of Christ are infused by his Spirit into all who are in him by faith, that he may also be in them. So what we do on earth is a sign, and Christians who neglect it hide the gospel under a bushel.

It’s like Mr. Tsang forgot he’s supposed to be analyzing Kinism and multiculturalism, and has launched into an irrelevant sermon instead.  Relevance, Tsang?

The kinship between London and Heidelberg was based not on race but on religion: their common struggle was for the survival of the Protestant faith. Indeed, when King James’s royal House of Stuart eventually failed to produce any royal issue, the monarch who succeeded Queen Anne was George of Hanover, grandson of Frederick V and Elizabeth Stuart. Necessarily I have related a simplified version of things, but I think it conveys the essence of the truth.

Spare us the freshman Western Civ lesson, what does any of this have to do with Kinism?

Further – even if we grant the legitimacy of Tsang’s historical analysis, who cares?  As Kinists, we derive our beliefs about normative social order from Scripture, not historical example.

There is no principled end to the kinist notion of keeping to one’s own racial kind.

This, from an indoctrinated, neo-Marxist.

I suppose there’s no principled end to family or marriage relationships either.

In the end, marriage is the kind of thing that depends on building a common culture: neither similarity nor difference in themselves determine the will, nor is the blood of man to be reckoned greater than the blood of Christ.

Just one asinine, unsupported (and incoherent) assertion after another…

What would it ever matter for a Christian to marry someone who was of the same cultural heritage but denied the Christian faith? Such a marriage would be less happy than a marriage between two Protestants of otherwise very different cultures. The cultural differences are not something love and understanding cannot surmount by the power of the Holy Ghost. Likewise a commonwealth, like a family, can maintain a coherent identity without demanding that minority cultural practices be effaced or isolated.

A marriage between a Christian Dutchman and a Christian pygmy, would be happier than a marriage between two Dutch?  That doesn’t make sense.

Also – if the Holy Spirit is going to magically swoop in and help the mixed marriage be harmonious, why doesn’t Tsang assume that the Spirit will swoop in and regenerate the heart of the unbelieving spouse?  There’s some Biblical warrant for the latter assertion, and none for the former.

And hey… we can all sleep well at night.  Tsang assures us, on the power of his own authority apparently, that we can maintain a coherent identity without demanding minority cultural practices be “effaced” or “isolated”.

Does this mean he really is a multiculturalist afterall?  Come on Mr. Tsang, didn’t you argue (earlier in your article) that such cultural diversity causes instability in a nation?  That we need some unifying cohesive force, else we wouldn’t have a nation at all?

Maybe Tsang would reply that a little multiculturalism is fine, as long as allegiance to the national proposition comes before allegiance to one’s kin.

I understand that some folk of European extraction feel culturally beleaguered.

When you’re done acting like a self-righteous, judgmental prick, Google “Christopher Newsom” and ask if he feels “beleaguered”.  Google “Eugene Terre’blanche” and try to determine if he feels slightly “put upon”.  Or go to the Council of Conservative Citizen’s website and spend 10 minutes reading…

You’re damned right we feel “culturally beleaguered”.  That’s an understatement!  You have no idea the level of wrath Satan is building for himself.  Only the depths of a Christian heart knows such anger, because only the depths of a Christian heart knows such love.

We renounce and defy your Satanism, Tsang, and bid ye take your religious zeal for speculation back to the Asian wilds from whence it came…

But the way to strengthen the cultures of our fathers is not to keep ourselves neatly separate but to commit ourselves anew to handing down the knowledge we have received. To renew tradition and give it to Christ, we need not think ancestry and family are the sole or even the primary ground of our concentric circles of concern. No, the Body of Christ is an organism far more complex in its workings, and the Blood of Christ surprises us far more with the kinds of people it urges us to befriend. The honour claims of ancestry and the charity claims of adoption, both given by God, need a far more interesting harmony than either kinists or multiculturalists propose.

…I read this paragraph and wonder why I even bother providing commentary.

It’s so ambiguous and unfocused, I don’t know what to even critique.

All I can do is counter-assert that Kinism is the Biblical position and is (hands-down) better for bringing about “harmony” among all the races than Tsang’s neo-Marxist ideal will ever be.

For the two differ, and yet Christ is not an anti-Adam but the Second Adam. For it became him, for whom are all things, and by whom are all things, in bringing many sons unto glory, to make the captain of their salvation perfect through sufferings. So we, too, shall through suffering be perfected unto the glory of our rightful Head, the sovereign over the human race.

More irrelevant sermonizing – presumably meant to impress the round eye with pseudo-pious language…

Leave multiculturalism and kinism to pagans; Christians have a better city for all creation to glimpse in their works, a bit of heaven to glimpse on earth.

Only it’s not Heaven you’re envisioning Tsang, but a Jacobin vision of utopia, and we Kinists want nothing to do with it.

I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it a hundred more times:

If hell is the Europe of Beowulf or the England of Dickens, Austen, and Kipling…then consign me to the seventh level of it.  I’d rather live as a stable boy there than a nominally-rich wage slave in this present world.

God save us from the speculators…

Round Eye Dares Correct a Minority…Part I


Grab your mahjong pieces and opium pipes as we dissect yet another anti-Kinist hit-piece, this time written by one Mr. Lue-Yee Tsang.

Opposed to each other are the ideologies of multiculturalism and kinism (and suchlike). Yet neither is the way of Christ, and it is this way that must prevail in the law and government of nations.

Kinists have begged the precious guardians of the new multicultural orthodoxy to explain to us exactly what is meant by “multiculturalism”, but sadly, little is forthcoming from the church.[1]  In light of this hopeless ambiguity, I’m not sure that “multiculturalism” and “kinism” are “opposed” in the way our Asian friend thinks. In fact, given his use of the phrase “and suchlike”, I suspect he has no idea what he’s talking about at all, certainly as it pertains to Kinism, which he (apparently) thinks can be carelessly grouped in with whatever other views he has in mind by the phrase “suchlike”.

What he needs to know about Kinism, specifically the Reformed manifestation of it, is that it grew out of the theonomy and Reconstructionist movement.  And there is no one in the entirety of the protestant world (perhaps in all of Christendom) more concerned about the “way of Christ” or having it “prevail in law and government of nations”.  We care about it far more than post-Christian hipsters who have learned to use pseudo-pious language to impress the round eye…

Mr. Tsang is yet another faceless blogger presuming to be an authority on Kinism.  Let’s see if he’s done his homework…

A nation cannot survive that is no nation. There must be something to bind the people together as one nation. Multiculturalism can furnish nothing to supply this want, for several nations join together not through a common commitment to their several disintegration but through a common culture, patiently built. Such a culture will not erase the regional differences and loyalties but bind the several up in one.

He says there *must* be something to bind people together as one nation – we have to wonder if he means this as a moral imperative or a pragmatic consideration.  Does God command us to bind people together?  Or is it merely a good idea to have a cohesive force supposing we want a “nation”?  In either case, Tsang is supposing that “nations” are not organic; that they must be formed and maintained by man…and this, Kinists disagree with.[2]  While it might be granted that there must be a unified bond of affinity among the people to keep them functioning as a political unit, the nation is defined by God and thus, is a nation even when all bonds of affinity are broken and all cohesion is lost.

He then suggests that “multiculturalism” cannot “furnish” the cohesiveness necessary for nationhood.  But this asks more of multicultists than they assume to offer.  Multiculturalism (at least, as I see the movement), assumes a sort of “propositional nationalism” model, where ideology always trumps cultural bonds.  In other words, fans of the Redskins and fans of the Dallas Cowboys should be able to look beyond their cultural differences and unite over their love of the American ideal.  Asians in California and the Mexicans in California, should be able to live side by side in harmony because both (ideally) are more loyal to American ideology.

This model of “propositional nationalism” is, as we’ll see, what our Asian friend is married to.  Only, he’ll want to tweak it such that some form of Christian doctrinal ideology replaces “American” ideology.  Swap out the parts all you’d like Tsang, it’s still the same model.

For the heavenly city, this one is Christ the King, who holds the authority of all and supplies the happiness of all, and in whom all the peoples and all creation hold together. Such a deep commonality transcends the things that distinguish one people from another; but the ideologies of the world are not such a commonality.

As suggested above, he sees belief in God as a “deep commonality”…one that is “deeper” (in some mystical fashion) than love for American democracy, or love for the Soviet ideal, or love for the European Union.

To reiterate – our Asian friend is married to the propositional-nation model; he simply wants to swap the unifying proposition from a secular political ideal, to some set of Christian propositions.  Then he wants to claim allegiance to Christian propositions are more “deeply unifying” than allegiance to any of the others.

But this is more confused than mac-and-cheese on a Chinese buffet…

Indeed, not even a papacy, claiming the fullness of Christ’s authority on earth, can rule the world and unite its peoples. Nor does the Turkish sultan and his caliphate have the power and authority to hold universal imperium and dominium.

Wait, now I’m confused…

Setting aside the irony (from a historical perspective) of this claim, didn’t he just suggest a propositional model where allegiance to Christian propositions could magically bind the world together?  Now he’s saying allegiance to Christian propositions *cannot* bind the world together?

The authority that Christ holds in heaven is held by him alone, and on earth he gives this power to no one man. He was never succeeded by one man, nor was his power ever given to one. His power has been vested in the entire Church, by the presence of the Holy Ghost, and no man has any authority at all in the Church except as representing the people.

This guy strikes me as someone firing “from the hip” with no real systematic approach to the topic.  That last line, especially, is indicative of Americana bias.  No one has authority unless they’re representing the people?  What does that even mean?  It’s asinine.

So – apparently, a propositional-nation can *only* function morally, if it includes democracy?

And as governors he first appointed twelve apostles, signifying the twelve tribes of Israel; and thereafter, through human constitutions, the bishops to defend the doctrine of the faith. This is a monarchy, whose only universal head is Christ himself. Under him to preach the faith are bishops, and to protect it with the sword are civil governors. He brooks no rivals: thou shalt have no other gods before me.

Oh… not democracy, but some form of constitutional monarchy then, ruled over by God (in principle), but in practice, amounting to a propositional world-government, structured hierarchically, with every member swearing allegiance to a set of Christian propositions?

Got it…

The Kinist model is different.

The Kinist model sees Christ as the king of an *international* world, made up of many nations.  And these nations are not defined “propositionally”, but rather, “organically” the boundaries being drawn according to family and tribal affinity.  And while allegiance to Christ as king should provide some form of international code of conduct, it can never replace (indeed: should not replace) the bonds of kinship.

For you postmodern Evangelicals gasping in horror at that admission, consider it from a different angle:

Suppose some sexually perverted egalitarian preacher (is there any other sort?) suggests to a newlywed husband that his love for his wife should not supercede his love for Christ.  The preacher suggests that the husband must share his wife with all the men in the congregation.  “We’re are all unified through our common belief in Christ, after all.  As a matter of fact, “families” have passed away in the New Covenant, and any attempt to continue the family bond is a sinful attempt to cause division among the brethren…now let us at your wife!”

Such is the disgusting yet accurate analogy of the way minority Christians are dealing with (particularly white) nations.  They claim we Kinists are vile heretics and in sin for wanting to maintain Godly boundaries.

We Kinists say that if you want our nation, you’ll have to pry it from the dead hands of our many heroes.

And yet the Jews and the Greeks were different. Had they any separate bishops? No, the locality principle was to testify to the one true Church in which all believers are in Christ in a heavenly manner, and to regard one another as brethren in their earthly dealings.

Actually, we might argue that they *did* have “separate bishops” in the Early church.  Further, Tsang begs the question here when he speaks about the “locality principle”.  Can he prove any of this, or should we take him at his word?

So, though Jew and Gentile kept each his language and customs, Jew and Gentile had their wall of partition broken down between them.  St Paul says the mystery, now revealed unto God’s holy apostles and prophets by the Spirit, is this: that the Gentiles should be fellow heirs, and of the same body, and partakers of his promise in Christ by the gospel: whereof I was made a minister, according to the gift of the grace of God given unto me by the effectual working of his power.

The Kinist view, and what I assume is the common Reformed view in general (at least among those Reformed scholars who aren’t out to prove some radically egalitarian agenda), is that the “breakdown of the wall of partition” means that the Covenant of Christ is now open to *all* people.

We cannot extend this concept to mean that all Christians are now meant to live and breed together…and that all Godly tribal bonds are abrogated.

So a Chinese girl can marry into a French family and become French while using the gifts of her Chinese heritage; and a White American girl can marry into a Black American family and become Black while contributing the gifts of her White American heritage. Upon this God has placed the highest seal of approval for his Church: [he quotes Ephesians 4 11-16]

It’s already been said that none of this follows from what Tsang has supplied.

Further – his propositional-nation model makes a mockery out of Ephesians 4…which is a flagship “proof text” for Kinism!  Instead of wanting to maintain a Godly diversity, as Paul suggests in Ephesians, Tsang wants to read radically egalitarian presuppositions into the text, so he can (presumably) feel justified in pursuing whatever hot blonde lass he’s got his eye on.

So a godly commonwealth will look, both within itself and (because it is not the whole Body of Christ) toward the other nations.

This is a terribly ambiguous statement, Tsang.

We Kinists, holding an “international” view of the Kingdom, can agree that we have fellowship with other Godly nations; that we can benefit from them and be enriched by their culture.[3]  But this is a far cry from the idea that we need to start daughter-swapping.

But see, this is not what a multiculturalist envisions. When my aunt married a Frenchman, they would not have asked that she even try to learn French. No, she was every bit as French as those who were born French, and she should reject the imposture of the majority culture. Can such a thing be endured in a single household, let alone a republic? No, she learned to speak French with both her husband and her in-laws, and she took up French cooking as well as Chinese, and her children she brought up speaking French and some Chinese. Her husband, who loves her and her culture, is a Sinophile and occasionally makes jokes in Cantonese. My older cousin sees himself more simply as French, though he can speak some Cantonese; his sister, despite actually speaking less Cantonese, sees herself as Chinese as well.

This paragraph belies Tsang’s confusion over the relationship between race, nationality, and culture.

I’m glad he applauds his aunt for conforming to a culture – what he should wonder is why his aunt despised her own tribe so much as to leave it for a foreign one.  Was it because she had a sexual fetish for a Frenchman?  Was it because the Frenchman was rich, dashing, and charming?  Was it because she was a traitor to her tribe and wanted to ally herself with another?  Who knows?

So far, perhaps, a kinist will agree.

That’s a great wall of “no” for you, Mr. Tsang…

Tune in next time, for the conclusion…

(See here for part II)


1.  The phrase “multiculturalism” is often used, but seldom defended with in-depth, scholarly argument.  I don’t know of any books from a Reformed perspective that go beyond popular sermonizing on the topic.  If any of you know of any rigorous defense of “multiculturalism” (however it might be defined)…please let me know of it.

2.  It’s true that even an organic nation must be “maintained”.  A Kinist might suggest that a nation, while arising organically, must nevertheless be defended from invaders, domestic lawbreakers, famine, disease, and the hardship of life.  But this is much different from the French Revolutionary ideal of a nation, where men come together based on political whim and form an arbitrary society with its own rules for membership and in which, all the petty internal factions must be herded together according to some common factor or common cohesive force.  It seems our Asian friend presupposes this latter view of “nation”.

3.  An example of this might be something like Southern Gospel music.  White musicians were able to borrow from black cultural expressions and appropriate them into the creation of new and exciting musical genres.  Of course, this relationship has been much abused by modern commentators, some claiming that white music is a cheap copy of negro songs, and others saying whites maliciously “stole” it.



Got Integrity?

From time to time this “Got Questions” article surfaces as a supposed “refutation” of Kinism.  As is usual for aliensts, the author shows little knowledge of Kinist ideals.  I give him cudos, however, for at least recognizing that Kinists are not Christian Identity.

That’s more than most Evangelicals are able to realize.  Even the esteemed author of Green Baggins, Lane Kiester, (who is a good enough scholar to know better) was unable to see the distinction (at least, initially).  His article  “The Main Biblical Problem With Kinism” should be more aptly titled “The Main Biblical Problem With Christian Identity” …it simply doesn’t touch Kinism.

Since the “Got Questions” article pops up from time to time, I’ll provide a brief critique:


Kinism is one branch of a diverse series of religious movements that promote racial segregation. This movement is based in Christianity and, for the most part, is populated with people who are historic, Calvinistic, orthodox and Reformed in their doctrinal views. The tendency to adhere to some true doctrines, however, does not mean that Kinists are orthodox in belief and practice. In fact, their adherence to true doctrines, and the extensive theological knowledge of some of the followers of Kinism, makes this legalistic cult all the more dangerous.

Is there a diverse series of religious movements promoting racial segregation?  Not that I know of, and I’ve spent some time trying to categorize the spectrum of Christian racialist ideals.  While people may disagree with me – I see the entire Christian racialist spectrum as divided between those with Christian Identity-type ideals, and kinism (lower case – where people accept that all races can be saved, but they should, nevertheless, stay segregated to some degree).

Also notice how in this first paragraph, it’s admitted that Kinist (upper case, denoting the specifically Reformed expression of kinism) are “ORTHODOX” in our doctrines.  So another cudos to the author for not mindlessly calling us heretics.  Apparently, we just need some correcting on our “practices”.

I love how he says we’re smart …makes a fella feel good about himself; but the last line of the paragraph blows it.  Kinism is a “legalistic cult”?

Let’s first reject the “cult” label out of hand, as needlessly pejorative.  The more serious charge is that of “legalism”.

“Legalistic” here seems to imply that Kinists teach a works/righteousness motif, where people are saved by law.  So, if this *is* what the author means by “legalistic”, then he is claiming that Kinists both hold orthodox Reformed doctrines, and that we do not … at the same time.

So we have two possibilities.

1.  Either Kinists are blatantly unintelligent and don’t realize they believe contradictory propositions:  Sola Fide as well as Salvation by Works (legalism).


2.  The author has misrepresented Kinist beliefs.

Both I and the author agree that Kinists are intelligent and well-versed in Reformed theology, so I think we both reject 1.  That leaves us with 2.

It is difficult to get a direct answer about Kinism, because the movement is relatively new and “un-formed” and also because Kinists themselves tend to be quite scholarly and esoteric. But a few things are clear. Unlike the Christian Identity Movement, or the Aryan Nation, Kinists do not believe that non-white races cannot be saved. Also, unlike Anglo-Isrealists, they do not believe that national Israel’s true descendants are the British and American people groups.

Maybe it’s difficult to get a direct answer because the author hasn’t ever tried having a prolonged “real life” conversation with an actual Kinist?  Eh?

As for the movement being “new” and “unformed”, well, the title “Kinism” is new, sure, but the positions we hold are not new – not at all.  Applying very old ideals to contemporary (and frankly: Satanic) social orders, is difficult even for trained theologians.  We Kinists are mostly laymen trying to forge this ground on our own while simultaneously coming under attack from every conceivable angle.  I think, given these circumstances, a little “unformed” rhetoric is understandable.

What makes Kinism different is the belief that God has ordained an order for mankind that goes beyond personal and individual worship.

…as all competent Reformed thinkers would.

Remember that every inch of creation belongs to God – not just those few areas of personal holiness Joel Osteen likes to talk about.  If we’re going to be consistently Christian in our thought, then we need to apply the Bible to EVERY area of life – politics and social-order included.

God has not left us to our own devices to come up with forms of government on our own.  He’s given us a blueprint of political ethics.

They believe that God has set boundaries for groups of human beings and that human beings should respect those boundaries by maintaining a tribal order. What this means is that you could have a group of white Kinists, and a group of black Kinists, but they would not worship together. They believe that man is usurping God’s authority when they “co-habit” with different races, when (as they say) God has ordained a necessary distinction. In the words of one Kinist, “This [belief] affects our ecclesiology since it would consider a multi-racial, drum-banging mega-church to be a foul stench in God’s nostrils.” Besides being unloving, this assertion is simply un-biblical, promotes a racist point of view, and is a platform for pride and legalism.

We believe God has set all kinds of boundaries onto creation that should be respected, including tribal boundaries – yes.

And while I do believe this would (of necessity) mean that different tribes would not worship together, it’s not because they’re different tribes.  Rather, it’s because the different tribes would be worshiping in different parts of the world.

When is the last time an alienist worshiped with someone from Iceland?  Been awhile?  Of course it’s not because the person is Icelandic, rather, it’s because they simply don’t have access to each other.

But what about in a sinful sort of post-Enlightenment nation like the United States where Biblical order is irrelevant?  In this environment, various tribes *are* close enough to worship.

As a Kinist, I have a few observations about ecclesiology in this sort of order:

1.  Segregation among different races in America happens naturally.  There are various racial communities that emerge organically.  (Even Dr. Bahnsen admits that this is natural).  This is as it should be because God has created us with an affinity for our own (similar to how men are naturally attracted to women).  We should not lead campaigns to “merge” all these groups together.

2.  Suppose we’re in some metropolitan situation though, where a church is composed of many races?  Well, this is fine (from a Kinist perspective) as long as the individual races are formally recognized.  For instance – it might be possible for such a church to have racially segregated small groups.  Also, as we see in the book of Acts – there is warrant (Biblical and practical) for having an elder to represent each group.

On this model, the races would all worship and fellowship together, but also have a formal respect for each other’s unique group identities.  Ideally – this would make for a harmonious church environment to last long enough for the ideal goal of one race (that, perhaps grows in membership faster than some of the others) branching out to form its own congregation.

The author says this is “unbiblical” and “unloving” and makes for a “platform of pride and legalism”.

Well, it remains to be seen how it’s unbiblical…also, I’m not sure how it’s “unloving” (at least as I’ve presented it here).  And if a doctrine is wrong because it has potential to lead humans into pridefulness and legalism – then ALL positions are wrong.  Humans can and will exploit any doctrine to prideful ends.

Also … still not sure what is meant by “legalism” …

Kinists insist on racially segregated churches and communities, and of course, families. They believe that Christians should still adhere to the Old Testament Laws that forbade Jews to intermarry with other tribes / families. They also say that God “separated” the races at the Tower of Babel, and that to “re-integrate” is an affront to the order for mankind that He has ordained. Both of these beliefs, despite having a copious amount of scholarly support in Kinist camps, can be easily dismantled with Scripture.

Scholarship anyone?  Where is the author getting these ideals about Kinism?  Are we supposed to take him at his word?  But shoddy scholarship aside, these ideals are close to what Kinists believe, but not quite accurate.

We believe Christians should adhere to the general equity of OT case laws (because we Kinists are also theonomists), and that includes the general equity of the laws governing inter-tribal association, as well as the laws governing how non-tribal members (ie: aliens) were to be treated.  But this general equity is also derived from the very creation ordinances themselves – where God established the family (and thus: tribe) as the foundational social order for mankind.

Also, while some Kinists do believe the Babel narrative helps as an explanatory model for the origin of racial diversity – it’s not foundational to Kinism.  *That* racial categories exist and should be maintained is what is important, not *how* they came to be.  It remains for some enterprising young Christian to come up with a scientifically-precise (and Biblically harmonious) anthropological model that adequately explains the diversity we see in the world today.

As for “dismantling” our ideals with Scripture … that part remains to be seen.

First, to determine whether Old Testament law regarding segregation pplies to the New Testament church, we should ask what the reason for segregation was in the Old Testament. God’s reason for this law was very clearly to avoid the introduction / assimilation of pagan idolatry into Jewish society

I’m not going to cite this entire paragraph, because it’s a big straw man.

Yes – we Kinists realize that God often separated His people from others as a way of “sanctifying” them and keeping them holy.  Yes, maybe some younger Kinists have inappropriately appealed to this sort of thing as a way to support racial segregation in general.

Nevertheless, God has established tribalism as the normative order for man.  This is not disproved by noting that He also promoted segregation for other reasons as well.  Just because the sanctification of a particular people-group has passed away, doesn’t mean that tribalist social order has also passed away.

The author needs to note that Kinists see all redeemed people as members of the Covenant of Grace, which makes them part of a new “Kingdom”.  The Kingdom is international in scope – meaning: it includes various races (ie: Biblical nations).   So God is the King of an international kingdom of various races.  He is not the King of a single, raceless blob of a propositional, post-Enlightenment nation.

Kinists believe in an “international” kingdom.

Alienists believe in an unbiblical “national” kingdom. 

As for God’s action at the tower of Babel being taken as His ordaining racial segregation, the story of the Tower of Babel (Genesis 11:1-9) is about God confusing the languages of men so that they would not be able to work together to accomplish evil against Him. It is not about racial segregation. This is proved by Galatians 2:11-14, where Paul opposes Peter for separating himself from the Gentile believers in their church.

As noted above, Kinists don’t usually believe the races emerged *at* Babel, yet, even if some do believe it, that doesn’t really matter.  How races emerged and *that* they emerged are two different issues.

Also – I’m not sure how the author’s position on Babel is “proven” by the Galatians narrative.  He’s not even doing damage to his own straw man!

Look at Galatians 2 more carefully.  Peter’s offense wasn’t “racism”, it was more of a jewish snobbery and being uncomfortable with the idea that non-jews were part of the Covenant.

Another example would be Paul’s ordaining as a Christian pastor the Greek-born Timothy (2 Timothy 1:6). He even calls Timothy “my true child in the faith” (1 Timothy 1:2). Timothy’s mother was Jewish and a woman of the faith. This implies that Timothy lived and ministered in a community that was both Jewish and Gentile. Did his own mother not attend his church?  And, if God wished the races to be segregated, which church would he, being half Jew and half Gentile, be able to pastor?

See my comments on Timothy here.

And what about Paul himself, who was a self-proclaimed “preacher, apostle… and teacher of the Gentiles” (1 Timothy 2:7)? If Kinism were true, would not God have sent a Gentile to preach to and teach the Gentiles?

If we hold to the model of inter-racial worship outlined above, then there’s no reason why God wouldn’t send preachers out to preach to other tribes.

The author maliciously tries to make Kinists defend a view of strict separation when really we Kinists just want to see Godly tribal boundaries formally recognized and maintained.  Let non-whites come to my church and preach if they’re authoritative and learned and have something worthwhile to share.  Nothing wrong with that.  And there’s nothing wrong with Paul preaching and teaching to the Gentiles.

The problem comes when modernist hipsters try to force us all to accept an ungodly social order that eradicates tribal boundaries all together and when they try to merge everyone into a giant propositional mud-bowl.

In short, Kinism is simply another attempt to be justified by Law, rather than by the gospel of God’s grace. “I am not ashamed of the gospel, because it is the power of God for the salvation of everyone who believes: first for the Jew, then for the Gentile”

Wow … again with the “Justified by Law” stuff …

Can anyone point to me where, in this entire article, the author demonstrated that Kinists teach some sort of justification by works or justification by keeping of the law?  Where?

Where do Kinists reject justification by faith alone???

This author needs to publicly repent for so carelessly (and offensively) misrepresenting Kinists.

I wont hold my breath while waiting…

Schwertley on the Kinist “Heresy”…


It’s a shame that unchecked zealots like Brian Schwertley exist in the Reformed community – and yet, they’re amongst us.[1]  Back in 2010, Schwertley preached a series of FOUR sermons on the so-called “Kinist” heresy.  Chocked full of arbitrary and ambiguous statements and seasoned with unsubstantiated slurs, Schwertley’s material represents the worst of Evangelical scholarship.  That Christians continue to take the man seriously is a sad testimony to the state of contemporary Evangelicalism.  (See my brief statements in response to the Choosing Hats guys, who try citing Schwertley’s material.)

I’d like to cut to the heart of Schwertley’s argument that Kinism is “heresy”.  We’ll examine it and see if it has merit.

At about 36 min. into sermon 1, Schwertley launches into an irrelevant tantrum about culture.  During this meandering side-trail, he gives what amounts to an argument for why Kinism is “heresy”.  Before stating it though, it’s important to note that Schwertley assumes a particular definition of “heresy” without argument.  We can define it as “…any teaching that denies in some form or other, the truth of the Gospel.”


Granting this view of “heresy”, we can examine his argument.  It proceeds as follows:

1.  Kinists teach that the normative social order for man is tribal and ethnic.

2.  This is a model of “societal sanctification” without appeal to the Gospel.

3.  Sanctification is by appeal to the Gospel alone.

Conclusion:  Kinists are heretics.


This looks formally valid.

At least, the conclusion seems to follow necessarily from the premises, as well as from the definition of “heretic” we’ve granted.  Let’s move on then and consider the soundness of the argument – by that I mean to examine the premises to see if they’re adequate and true.

Premise 1 is fair enough and likely comes from one of the many “statements of Kinist beliefs” on the net.

Premise 2, however, is where we see the problem.

What is “societal sanctification without appeal to the Gospel”?

Presumably, Schwertley is suggesting Kinist teach that societies ordered along tribal and ethnic lines are more “sanctified” than societies which are not.  On this view – a society which becomes more and more “sanctified” would, eventually, attain perfection and thereby gain access to the Kingdom for successfully keeping God’s commandments.  This sanctification is supposedly accomplished by adherence to a tribal norm rather than any mechanism tied to the Gospel.

In response:

1.  I don’t know of any Kinist who teaches this sort of “societal sanctification”.   Kinists routinely criticize tribal-groups, African tribes or jewish elite ethnocentrism, for instance.  There’s no routine teaching in the Kinist community (that I’m aware of) that such societies are more “sanctified” in holiness than other non-tribal societies.

So – Schwertley’s premise 2 fails at this point since it presents a straw-man caricature of Kinist teaching, rather than a fair and accurate statement.  His argument may succeed against anyone who holds to some non-Christian ideal of “societal sanctification”, but it doesn’t touch Kinism.

2.  To be technically precise, as Reformed thinkers, we might agree that if someone (or by extension: an entire group) is able to keep God’s commandments perfectly, then they would have kept the Covenant of Works and earned their salvation.  This is, afterall, the only way to gain eternal life.  We do believe in salvation by works.  Of course, because of our fallen nature, no one, let alone an entire society, is able to attain this level of perfection, and so we rely on Christ, who was perfect, to impute to us His righteousness and declare us holy on the day of judgment.

For Schwertley’s argument to be relevant to Kinism, he’d have to show that Kinists believe entire societies might be sanctified by their own works somehow…and as pointed out in 1, this is just not something Kinists believe.

3. We must consider if the idea of “societal sanctification” even makes sense from a Reformed perspective.

Traditionally, Reformed systematicians have taught that union with Christ simultaneously brings about both justification and sanctification.[2]  But while our justification is immediate, our sanctification takes a lifetime.  If entire generations of a particular social group are regenerated at the same time, and they all experience an even rate of sanctification, then it may be possible to determine the total “sanctification” of a given population.  Accordingly – if we apply our rubric to the social order in the abstract, it may become possible to measure different societies against each other to see which, if any, are more “sanctified” than the others.

4. So it DOES seem like “societal sanctification” makes sense within a Reformed framework; it doesn’t look possible without tying sanctification to the doctrine of Union-With-Christ, though.[3] Attempts to get sanctification without the doctrine of Union-With-Christ, place us in the “works-righteousness” camp, which denies the Gospel…as Schwertley’s argument suggests; and as we’ve seen in both 1 and 2 – this simply isn’t what Kinists, as Reformed folk, teach.

5.  The word “sanctification” is the wrong word to use anyway.  When Kinists talk about social order, they’re not usually speaking about it in a soteriological sense.  Rather – they’re specifically referring to its adherence to the “normative” pattern of Godly governance.

Schwertley may not understand Christian ethics as clearly as he should at this point.

If we take John Frame’s meta-ethical framework for granted, we would note that there are three “perspectives” to Christian ethics – all three of which must be taken into account when determining if any action, act, or attitude, is “good” in a moral sense.[4]  We have the “normative” perspective – this deals with the law in the abstract.  We have the “situational” perspective – this deals with the particular situation in which we find ourselves, including possible outcomes of our actions, and how they govern our application of the normative law.  And finally we have the “existential” perspective, or an examination of our internal motives for performing any given act.

When Kinists speak about the “normative” order for any society, they’re speaking about what God has ordained in the Framean sense of “normative”.  In this way – all sorts of societies can live up to the “norm” of tribalism without being “sanctified” – without the doctrine of Union, they would not have proper motives (existential) nor enact their tribalism in God-honoring ways (situational).   Kinists can still speak of these non-Christian and unsanctified societies as “living up to the normative, Godly standard”.

Consider this analogy:  we acknowledge that some atheists keep parts of God’s law.  They don’t steal or murder.  But pointing out that an atheist doesn’t murder is NOT to make any statement whatsoever about his “sanctification”.  It’s merely to say that he’s living up to certain normative standards.  Imagine someone telling us that we teach “sanctification by works” because we teach that atheists should not murder…that’s ridiculous.

In the same way, we’re not teaching “sanctification by works” because we teach that societies ought to be arranged tribally.  Schwertley is confusing sanctification and normative adherence to God’s standards….he needs to understand that commenting on the latter has little to do with the former.


We might quibble with premise 3 in the same way.

Schwertley might be suggesting that “union with Christ” comes only through the sharing of the Gospel, and hence, by extension, one can only be sanctified by first believing in the Gospel … and yet, given how ambiguous his presentation is, he may mean something else entirely.

If we give him the benefit of the doubt here, though, then we can accept premise 3 as is.

Deconstructing premise 2 was enough to defeat the entire argument anyway.


[1] Schwertley is a pastor in the “Westminster Presbyterian Church in the United States”, an organization whose legitimacy is in some doubt.   Also, the man himself is known for his over-zealous and inaccurate critiques of opponents.  See this article as an example case.

[2] I’ve linked to a “Christ the Center” episode, featuring Dr. Lane Tipton; Tipton and others at Westminster Theological Seminary have numerous great lectures about Justification / Sanctification / and Union with Christ available for free on the net.  They offer general overviews of the standing of the doctrine in the Reformed theological community…which I’ve tried to faithfully re-produce in my brief comments above.

[3] Roman Catholics or Lutherans might object to my wording here, claiming that their ideals of Union and Sanctification might work as well as the Reformed model, but as this is a debate internal to the Reformed camp, I’m delicately laying aside such issues; I hope my RC and Lutheran friends will forgive me.

[4] As a theonomist and a presuppositionalist (at least – I suspect Schwertley is a presupper), I expect him to consider Frame an authority on ethics…as did Dr. Bahnsen.  Dr. Frame’s “Triperspectival” view of ethics is an outworking of his devotion to Cornelius Van Til’s apologetic methodology, and tries to present ethics as a “reflection” of God’s trinitarian nature.  See Frame’s “Doctrine of the Christian Life” for a thorough exposition of this view.  Also, see Frame’s lectures on ethics, available free from i-Tunes.

Way Beyond the Blue

The Genovese say that paternalism (from whites, directed at blacks) in the old south was a “fatal self-deception”…

…but I disagree, and not only for the obvious reason that may be assigned to me by malicious detractors (who suspect I have an evil intent to disallow any negative view of old Dixie).

God grows people like farmers grow crops, and in His wise providence, He’s brought together two races and created, in my view, a unique Southern culture that produced individuals that are, if not superior, at least just as good as, any seen in the civilized world.

It’s not the presence of blacks in the south that is the problem for our people, rather, it’s the destruction of old European ideals of propriety – as Wendell Phillips (the radical abolitionist) said, “The whole social system of the gulf states is to be taken to pieces, every bit of it.” And so they did.

They destroyed any beneficial paternalist relations between the two races, and replaced it with fear, loathing, and a vicious competition for resources. It created a “will-to-power”, artificial construct of a civilization, where nightmares walk the streets of Atlanta, and every good thing is brought low.

For those who might be upset by what I’m saying here, please pay attention to this next bit …

I realize that anyone who praises the negro at this point in our people’s history, might be comparable to those who, in light of horrendous, repeated, and daily abuses from law enforcement agents, ignore it all in favor of praising the “boys in blue” with a mindless fascination that is absolutely maddening to those of us with still-beating-hearts.  (Nevertheless, I respect the office of a policeman, even if he doesn’t, and even when that office is twisted to perverted ends by lawmakers).

It’s almost treason, isn’t it?  To find the small bits of good in the negro populace, when, everyday they’re raping and killing our people?

For sure, I’d agree it is treason, and might accuse someone of it, if they harped on this theme too often.  Also, if someone were to bring up these points whenever the “r” word is thrown around, presenting them in such a way as to make them seem as palatable to the liberals as possible, as if to win accolade, or a place at Satan’s table, then it’s all the more damning to them.

They’re doing what Satan does when he quotes a bit of truth for evil purposes.  I’ve heard some supposed “scholars” who feign appreciation for the old Southern aesthetic, argue similarly as I have in this blog, and yet, when push comes to shove, they spin it all to make it seem compatible with modern prejudices.  They ought to be ashamed of themselves for doing it.

In the early part of last year, when my face was plastered all over national newspapers and showed up in the mainstream media, I felt like I was a kid in grade school, standing naked in the gym and stared at by the entire student body.  It was suggested to me that I write some articles stating my views on negros, to try and salvage what little public dignity I may still have had.  They wanted me to back-peddle, or somehow avoid being accused of the ultimate sin.

Even if I had complied and written something like this blog back then, it wouldn’t have been accepted, and worse, I’d also have been seen (for what I would have been): a sell out.

So, I understand why some of you in the alternative right, racialist community might not like what I’m saying in this post.

Still, as a Christian, much of the pagan white-nationalist rhetoric is not only unsatisfying to me, but revolting.  The way they talk about other humans; the way they support abortion, support homosexual unions, support all manner of sick sexual fetishes; the way they advocate godless philosophies … It’s hard for me to find camaraderie with them about the negro, or sympathize with their mindless hated of him.

Even if, as some of my readers believe, negros aren’t fully human (I don’t believe this, but some people do)…I can’t find it in my heart to hate them.  I’ve lived around them for too long to have a blind, abstracted hatred (and believe me – if anyone in the world has been wronged and abused by negros, it’s me).

I do, on the other hand, have a burning hatred for the liberals, the intellectuals, the captains of industry, and any who openly pledge their allegiance to Satan by engaging in the ritualistic slaughter of my people, by deconstructing our heritage, our laws, and / or our very souls.  Those are the people whom I hate, and hate with a blinding passion…just as I hate the one whom they serve (whether they know they serve him or not).

And it’s because I hate them so much, I don’t harp on my views concerning negros, or make much ado out of the culture in the south that was created, in part, by a clash of two very different races…(two races which, while respecting and mutually benefiting from each other, were kept strictly separated by force of custom and ancient prejudices…as they should have been).

We have the hope of a return to that blessed paternalism, where the best of our race is informed and gratified by the best in theirs…which once created an agrarian, sensible folk who, white and black together, found their spirit, and will one day find it again ….way beyond the blue …

Confessions of a Schitzophrenic Kinist


There has been some measure of talk about “puritans” in alternative-right circles, mostly from a negative perspective.  But, Kinists, being largely of a Reformed (or Calvinist) mind-set have sought, at almost every turn, to defend them.  As a young Kinist, I wanted to follow suite, realizing that confrontation between us and the secular alt-righters was inevitable on this point.

But experience has hammered away my naivete, bringing me, inch by inch, towards a hatred of religious zealotry in whatever form, but most notably, that obtained by inheritance from the New Englanders who passed on their zeal for righteousness to their ideological descendents.  I didn’t realize how big a tragedy this was until further study revealed to me quite a different religious tradition in, not only my native South, where the tradition flourished, but in the wider antique-European mindset – an attitude which broadly characterized the “classical” mind and lead (perhaps from Aristotle?) to the idea of a golden mean in all things; moderation, tolerance, and a willful curiosity to dispassionately entertain disagreeable positions, even if only to laugh at them in kind hearted derision (when circumstances allowed – we no longer have such luxury today).

Such characterized Southerners who, being distinguished from their Northern neighbors in thought, showed their differences by what they spent time reading and studying.  The average southerner, for instance, might have Cicero, Homer, or Horace in his library, while the northern puritan had the likes of Edwards, Calvin, or Witherspoon.  (Personally, in what little study I’ve done on the matter – I see a reflection in North and South of the Whig and Tory controversy, or even further, between that of Athens and Sparta in ancient times.  This wrestling of the two attitudes is ancient).

I say it’s a big tragedy, because the Northern mindset won out in the end, and now there isn’t a Presbyterian in existence (at least – a popular writer and speaker) who can be rightly pinpointed as belonging to the Southern tradition.  Instead, they’re puritans all – seeking to find God through rationalist reflection and syllogisms.

This movement came to the south through the so-called “Second Great Awakening”.  This time period (after the Civil War) was one of defeat for Southerners and they were in dire need of authority figures willing to conserve their traditions against the onslaught of liberalism and modernism.  “Fundamentalism” (a northern invention) seemed the perfect ally in this duty, and fundamentalist preachers gained a strong southern foothold, accordingly.

I realize this bit of historical commentary is drastically over-simplified and requires many foot-noted, scholarly articles before it will convince any in the religious community (Puritan truth is foot-noted truth, after all).  Nevertheless, I’ve provided enough here to set the stage for the point I’d like to make in this article, and I am confident the historical material, if looked into, will justify me on this point.

“Kinism” emerged out of the cultural milieu that resulted – I mean, a strong insistence on tradition and agrarianism, but from within a puritanical, “rationalist” mindset.  I was brought up in a household where these ideals were in a particular conflict, though none of us realized it then (I’m only realizing it now).  We were attempting to merge our fundamentalist (puritanical) zeal with the easy-going, southern traditions in which we were reared.

Much of my work for “Kinism” has been in this vein, seeking a way to rationally justify our positions with philosophical rigor.  As recent as this year, a few weeks ago, I was studying contemporary philosophy, very deeply, trying to establish what I’m calling a “Constitutionalist View” of race, which is derived from the “constitutionalist” view of persons popularized by Lynne Rudder Bakker, and many others.  This view is philosophically sound, theologically accurate, and able to answer the rational critiques launched by that brand of puritan who opposes the Kinist – the “alienist”.

But I’ve always been double-minded in this.

I read “Cambria Will not Yield” frequently, and he’s always suggesting that we don’t need a theory of race, and that we don’t know God through our mental faculties.  We don’t capture Him through the mind – rather, we know Him through our blood and through our heart.

This is in accord with the old Southern religion I’ve learned about; in accord with the old religion of Europeans.  For you philosophers – call it an “aesthetic epistemology” if you will.  And while I’m convinced I can defend this philosophically (ie: describe it all in the language of the Puritans), I’m no longer convinced I want to do so, or that it would be fruitful to do so, or even that it would be in keeping with the best traditions of my ancestors to do so.

A few days ago, we Kinists joined in a debate with puritanical “alienists” who, as is their habit, censored, banned, booted, and did the most awful things to us, in the name of their religious zeal.  They need not entertain our ideas, or give us a fair hearing.  They’re too devoted to their religious scheme to allow for it.  We, on the other hand, are required to hear them out, be civil, fair, and give them the best of all possible considerations.

I stopped mid-debate, and left, without even excusing myself.  I could no longer stand it.  I could no longer lower myself to debate these heart-felt truths that I hold to so strongly.

This is a serious problem for the puritan, who relies on dispassionate consideration of complex and nuanced propositions, and who must keep his mind sharp, free from cloudy emotions, in order to split the sort of hairs necessary in debate.

I’m usually very good at this – but at best, it can only ever be a game.  I’m not dispassionate, and I can’t keep my emotions out of it.

There’s going to come a time when I either need to put down my study of philosophy and take up a book on warfare, or give up all together in face of an unreasonable mass of hyenas, who have run together and formed a giant, mocking dragon…that seeks to devour all that’s good in the world.

From Rush With Love


Recently, the esteemed Mr. Palmetto Patriot has written an article criticizing certain historical perspectives held (supposedly) by the great R.J. Rushdoony, of whom I consider myself a proud disciple.  But like all great men, Rushdoony had his faults, and no matter how appreciative I may be, I’m not willing to accept him nor anyone uncritically (excepting myself, of course.  Hyuck Hyuck).  Also, I’m not particularly interested in defending Rushdoony’s historical commentary.

Nevertheless, there are a few points of consideration that bear clarification in response to Palmetto’s article.

I’m eager to make this first one public: lately I’ve been voicing my disagreements with the work Palmetto Patriot and others at the League of the South are doing.  I find that new flag of theirs especially disagreeable, both aesthetically and in function.

That said, I want it known that I really like the guy (Mr. Palmetto that is).  It’s hard not to; he’s got the perfect South Carolinian drawl and a sunny, optimistic personality that wears off on those around him.  I’ve also been a long time admirer of his work at the Southern Nationalist Network (linked to above).  I hope everyone reading this knows that, even though I have disagreements with the League’s methods (I see them as infatuated with “activist” magic), that I have no desire to discourage them or hinder their forward motion in any way, and I feel the same about Mr. Palmetto’s work – it’s drastically needed, and I pray they see secess…er…success.

Admiring his work, though, leads me to my second consideration:  his recent material on the so-called “Golden Circle”.

The concept of the “Golden Circle” fascinates me; I’m glad he’s pursuing it.  I hope the ideal takes hold in southern nationalist circles and becomes a regular part of our polemics.  If you’re curious about what the “Golden Circle” is, I think his article on Rushdoony presents the idea in the clearest, and most succinct form yet – for that alone, I appreciate the article.  Consider this:

Southern plantation societies were part of the same civilisation as the plantation societies of the British Caribbean and family, cultural, religious and economic ties between the Southern mainland and islands was strong. More broadly speaking, the South was part of a vast group of societies that embraced inequality, the plantation model, African slavery and rejected the bourgeois, Modernist impulse of New England and much of Western Europe.

Described here, is an entirely different “civilization” than what was established north of the Mason Dixon – a different “style” of living, if you will.  And I think the three of us (Palmetto, me, and Rushdoony) would all cast our lot in with it, over and above the horrendous “liberal” establishments spawned by Enlightenment rhetoric.

And this leads to a third consideration:  I’m glad that Palmetto is introducing a Southern Nationalist crowd to Rushdoony’s work.  If even two percent of his readers are encouraged to investigate Rushdoony’s life and theological contributions, that will be worth buying Palmetto at least four of those fancy imported Scottish beers whenever we meet.

But now, on to my fourth consideration, which is more critical:  For an article critiquing Rushdoony’s view, it seems odd that it never actually cites Rushdoony.  Instead, (and I don’t blame Palmetto too much for this), he relies on a wiki article which, itself, relies on a eulogy written by a hostile intellect, Westminster Seminary’s William Edgar.  And Edgar’s comments about Rushdoony’s view of history are mere caricatures, recalled from a brief study conducted back in the sixties.

There’s no doubt about the hostility towards theonomy at Westminster, but even more, towards Rushdoony, whom was suspected of being a vile “Holocaust Denier” and “racist”.  Tell you the truth, I’m surprised Edgar wrote a eulogy for Rushdoony at all.  Maybe the two knew each other briefly at some point?

At any-rate, lack of primary source data is a weakness in Palmetto’s article, leading to over generalization and straw-man criticisms of Rush’s position.  Consider, for example, the idea that Rushdoony taught America, before the war of 1861, was an orthodox Protestant nation.

I’m not sure what quote (exactly) Edgar got this from, but it’s an unfair representation of Rushdoony’s view.  In fact, in defending early American postmillennial attitudes, Rushdoony often highlighted how few Christians there were in the country.  He was fond of telling stories about how theologically ignorant settlers on the frontier and in the gulf states were.  This shows, taught Rush, that a dedicated minority, fueled with religious passion, can take over the destiny of a country and achieve success by the hand of God.  Consider:

“The first generation of settlers, when they left, their sons and those that followed them, were *not* particularly given to this point of view [postmillennial Christianity - S.T.]  We shall, subsequently, come back to this subject.  But, one of the most interesting things is that, we misunderstand early American history if we think Christians were in the majority.

When the Mayflower came to this country, only a small handful of those on it were actually Christian.  The rest came over because they wanted to get away from the old country, or they thought they could make money.  This was true throughout the colonial period.  This was true in early constitutional America.  The majority of the people were not Christian.” ~ from Rushdoony’s audio lecture on “Eschatology and History” starting around 15:50.

Rushdoony goes on to explain how Christian ethics, through the hard work of postmillennial minded Christians were able to influence the American culture (at-large).

Agree or disagree with his position, to paint it as a simple assertion along the lines of “Antebellum America being a Protestant Nation” misses the depth and entire thrust of Rushdoony’s teaching.  The same sorts of examples can be provided for all the statements (which, as we’ve seen, aren’t statements at all, but echos of possible statements) Palmetto has criticized.

So to conclude, I appreciate Palmetto Patriot’s work, and I’m glad he has presented Rushdoony to a Southern Nationalist audience.  I just hope his audience is inspired to read a little Rush in a charitable light.  His contributions to conservative thought are vast and deep; anyone who gives him a chance will be greatly rewarded.

Spreading the Kinist Message at the Bahnsen Conference

I flew out to California to attend the first ever Greg L. Bahnsen conference – a conference focusing on presuppositional apologetic methodology as well as theonomy and Christian ethics.

Dr. Bahnsen’s work has meant so much to me and changed my life in so many ways; I couldn’t resist going.

I found the California culture strange and in some ways uninviting.  But in other ways, it was beautiful, especially the Pacific coast line, the trees, and mountains.  I could write an entire article on my experience in California before the Bahnsen conference even began, but , that’s for another day.

I didn’t intend on discussing Kinism at all at the conference.  I love Christian apologetics so much (and theonomy is a branch of ethics, so, is naturally a part of apologetics) I was hoping to fill my time discussing those issues.

Nevertheless, the conference turned into more of an echo-chamber, bouncing the old introductory talking-points off a like-minded audience.  There was nothing new added to the work of Dr. Bahnsen, and the best part of the conference were the personal recollections of his close friends.

So, during the question and answer period of the last lecture, I decided to ask a round about question that might cause the speaking pastor to scratch close to where Kinists were itching.

“There is a lot of speculation involved in extracting the “general equity” from old testament case laws and applying it to contemporary contexts; I understand that.  But, I’ve always been curious what, in a general sense, it might look like to extrapolate the OT tribal laws to contemporary contexts.  What would that look like today?”

The Pastor, to his credit, immediately brought up Kinism, mentioning that there was a small group of Reformed people who utilize these case laws to show that race mixing was sinful – a statement which elicited boos from the crowd, some of them patting the shoulders of their black friend (who was sitting there with his white, pregnant wife).  “How could the Reformed community entertain such vile ingrates as these kinists?” was the general sentiment in the crowd.

But again, to his credit, the pastor never condemned Kinists.  And while he arbitrarily dismissed the tribal laws as “ceremonial” and thus “done away with”, he didn’t provide argumentation for this assertion, and even admitted that it was something the Reformed community needed to have honest, and civil dialogue about.

Afterwards, when the conference was over, I stayed around talking with people.  We talked for hours.  Finally, racial topics came up; someone mentioned that they were upset about comments from Pastor Morecraft concerning slavery and how, perhaps the white slave owners in Dixie weren’t evil incarnate.  I was being circumspect about Kinism up to that point, but couldn’t resist answering this frankly.  My frank replies brought more inquiry, especially about the nature of my question during the conference QnA.  “What do you think about this Kinism, stuff?”

At that point, I said I had to leave, got in my car and drove off.  As I drove, I began mentally kicking myself for passing up the opportunity.  Hindsight told me to damn civility and go for truth next time.  I prayed that God might give me a chance to redeem myself.

Then HARK! I realized I had accidentally left my laptop inside the building!  I sped back to get it, and when I returned, there were still two people in the parking lot.  One, a deacon from the church who had stayed behind to lock up, and the other, the member who had asked me about my thoughts on Kinism.

I snagged my computer, then walked over to him and said “you know, to be honest, I am a Kinist.  I consider myself a passionate spokesman for the view and have even been in the national news because of it.”

His eyes got big.  We stayed there talking for another two hours, him, condemning me (in civil, friendly tones) and me expounding on the nature of Kinism.

Eventually, the deacon had to leave, but promised to look up Kinism to learn more; me and the other gentlemen drove out for dinner, where our conversation continued on into the evening.  And while he would certainly never agree with me about racial issues, we got to be good friends and parted on excellent terms.

I hope the thrust of my position was made clear.  I’ll list a few of my main contentions:

1.  I wanted it clearly understood that we Kinists love everyone, don’t wish ill of anyone, and that we just want what’s best for the Reformed community.

2.  I wanted it known that EVEN IF Kinism were wrong, I’d be happy because at least we would have forced the Reformed community to take charge and lead the way on working through racial issues.  We shouldn’t take our talking-points from pop culture, or blindly adhere to whatever Oprah or Michelle Obama say about race.  We should be the ones providing ideology to the culture!  So, if the Kinist movement makes the Reformed community address these issues from a consistently Christian position, then Kinism is a blessing, even if wrong-headed.  (It’s not wrong-headed though, of course).

3.  I wanted them to realize that we Kinists argue the same way for Kinism as they argue for any other aspect of theonomy (they were all theonomists).  We look at the OT case law, extrapolate the general equity therein, and apply it to today’s context.  And the OT case law clearly teaches tribalism as the normative order for man.

“In history, we have Tribe, Tribe, Tribe, Tribe, … now, bam!  America! Where did this come from?  It came from the French Revolution and Enlightenment rationalism!  Be aware of your presuppositions, gentlemen!”

I made other points, especially about the nature of “race” and how Scripture teaches ethnic nationalism.  I made plugs for all our websites, including Tribal Theocrat and Faith and Heritage.

But, I can’t emphasize enough, the spirit in which these discussions took place – they were very civil, very loving, and very friendly.  We all parted on excellent terms, even though we knew the seriousness of our disagreements.

This is how it should be in the Reformed community …

…leave the flame wars, disingenuous censorship, and general nastiness to the pagans.

Matt Slick Tackles Kinism…(and bounces off)

Matt Slick is an internet apologist whose specialty is intellectually bullying Roman Catholic and Atheist teenagers while broadcasting live on his internet radio show.  He’s also the founder and president of “Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry” or “CARM”.

I’ve had a long affiliation with this ministry.  I used to hang out in their chatrooms, spreading the Kinist message via the internet.  There, I’d have interactions with Matt Slick, who was (more often than not) disposed to boot me from the room without a second thought.

Additionally, Matt Slick is also hostile towards theonomy.  I called his live show once and had a “debate” about it which lasted a little over ten minutes.  (I have the audio in my archive somewhere, and I’m sure it’s still available on his website, but this was over 3 years ago at least; I couldn’t hope to remember the date.  So, it’d be virtually impossible to find).  His argument against theonomy consisted in asking me very provocative questions:  “Wait, wait, so…you’re for executing adulterers????”  As if answering “yes” to that question was all the refutation I required.

I pointed out over and over, that God’s law was not to be mocked in that way.  We’re not to presume that God’s law is crazy or outrageous simply because it’s politically incorrect.  That is to place political correctness in judgment over His law.  Blasphemy!  But Matt Slick didn’t think too deeply about it.

Later, I moved my efforts from CARM (where I was frequently censored) to another online venue where, quite unexpectedly, it turned out Matt Slick also spent some time.  Although, at this new venue, he wasn’t in control of the infrastructure and was participating as an equal (without the ability to administratively silence his debate opponents).  Of course, he didn’t seem to thrive in that sort of environment, and quickly arranged affairs such that you had to enter his “room” to talk with him, and there, he could boot, ban, or bounce as he saw fit.

Nevertheless, I continued my dialogues off and on with him there.  One day, we finally had a debate about Kinism – which he seemed to understand solely as a euphemism for “denial of race mixing”.  The debate consisted of me arguing that our position is derived from good and necessary consequence from many Scriptural passages, and him replying that unless I mention a specific Bible verse that outlaws race-mixing in the next 30 seconds, I was to be censored and thrown from the room.  He would repeat this over and over and over, in a mindless and zealous fit.  “BIBLE VERSE PLEASE! BIBLE VERSE PLEASE!”

Well, Mr. Slick, … it’s right next to the verse that says only explicit statements are authoritative!  Or, it’s right next to the verse that sanctions white genocide!

I was booted, and haven’t spoken to him on the topic since.  However, shortly after these events, a hastily-written article showed up on the CARM website.  “What is Kinism? Is it biblical?”

A refutation of Slick’s criticisms

The article begins by presenting a (more or less) fair outline of Kinism, with citations from  Nevertheless, there are a few issues in his caricature that bear highlighting.

“Kinism is a relatively new theological movement…”

“Kinism” as a self-conscious body of thought, is new, sure, but the doctrines and attitudes we promote are very old, even as old as the first humans (we would argue).  Tribal solidarity not only defined much of the Old Testament narratives, but has been a stalwart and strongly-held ethical norm for most every culture and people-group in the world for all of history. (Similar to the institution of marriage).

Sadly, however, this time-honored and Godly social order was seldom self-consciously defended.  Only in our recent era has a self-conscious defense been called for, and Kinists are rising to meet the challenge.

“It maintains that people are to be involved with, worship with, and marry people of their same kind; that is, their same race.”

This is a true statement about Kinism, certainly, but Slick is missing the point about *why* we teach this.  He’s solely focused on *that* we teach it.  His statement above makes it seem like he’s envisioning all this taking place within a multicultural, modern, American society; as if we would be segregated off in a back room, putting bars over the door, and keeping the colored folk out.

What we Kinists really have in mind, is national segregation – meaning:  entire nations, based on racial kin-groups, would be separate from each other.  And once these nations are established, it naturally follows that we’d only be worshiping with and marrying our own race.  That’s all who would be available.  And towards this end, we practice segregation as much as we possibly can in this depraved society.

I should also mention that, as for “worshiping” based on racial groups – we Kinists do prefer segregated worship (because we prefer segregated nations), but the point must be made that, should a Christian black couple, visiting from a neighboring black nation, happen to pass through the community on Sunday, and wish to worship at a white church, they’d be more than welcome, certainly.  But, should they wish to stay and live in the area (thereby creating an unnatural situation), they’d either have to be segregated during the service (sit in a balcony, for instance), or start their own church.

As a Kinist, then, I strongly support the church segregation that is still popular in the South (although, thanks to the efforts of rabid egalitarian and politically-correct pastors, like Matt Slick, all-white churches are slowly becoming a thing of the past).

“Furthermore, the races were separated at the Tower of Babel…”

While some Kinists may believe this (and some may not), it’s not a tenet of Kinism.  We’ll see, in a moment, that Slick tries to critique this premise.  But it’s simply irrelevant to Kinism.  We don’t know for sure how God brought about human races on Earth; it’s certainly not a refutation of Kinism to argue that races didn’t arise at Babel.  There are many different theories (and models) based on Scripture, that speculate about how races came about, but refuting any one of them, doesn’t damage Kinism.  *That* racial categories came about, and are important for regulating social behavior, is what’s important.

As stated above, they are against interracial marriage and advocate intermingling only with their “own kind”

Besides the irony of putting “own kind” in scare quotes, I’d like to note that this sentence is only mostly true.  In a perfect Kinist world, we would have various racial nations – preferably, Christian racial nations.  And as a Kinist, I have absolutely no problem dealing with, and being allies with, a neighboring black nation.  We could trade with each other, sight-see in each others countries, and have church councils together (and other such things), as long as the natural, Godly borders between our nations remain very clear and firmly established.  But if “intermingling” means, letting some buck negro play out his sick sexual fantasies with young Christian white girls … then I absolutely do *not* support “intermingling”.

After this brief introduction, Matt Slick offers six points of “analysis” that seem very hasty and off-the-cuff.  Two of his points are completely irrelevant, and the remaining four are nothing more than the tired, passe’, and ill-thought-out criticisms that Kinists have already answered ad nauseam.

1.  Genesis 1:25 is about kinds of biological life such as cattle, insects, birds, etc.  There is nothing here about “kinds” meaning different races within humans.

First, this is irrelevant.  Kinism doesn’t stand or fall on someone’s interpretation of Genesis 1 or “kind after kind”.  Racial categories exist today and should be maintained, whatever “kind after kind” means.

But, Kinists believe there is good reason to suspect that “Kind after Kind” does speak to racial diversity.  Matt Slick believes he can post a simplistic statement like this and have it count as a refutation, because he doesn’t believe he’ll be called to account for himself.  It’s sloppy.  What is “biological life” anyway?  How is it different from regular life?  Can Matt Slick provide some defense for his statement about the meaning of this text?  Dr. Bahnsen, in his lecture series on hermeneutics constantly reminds his students that they had to have a reason for thinking a verse meant what they thought it meant.  What’s Slick’s reasoning?

If “Kind after Kind” means bluejays with bluejays and redbirds with redbirds, then, prima-facie, it also means white folk with white folk, and blacks with blacks.  What kind of egalitarian, hermeneutical magic will Slick use to defend his bold statement in point 1?  Well, he doesn’t suspect he’ll ever have to defend it.

2.  The Tower of Babel dispersion was because the people were not spreading through the earth and they were elevating themselves.  So, God dispersed them.  There is nothing in the text that shows segregation based on skin color.

As mentioned above, this is irrelevant to Kinism.

However God created the races, the fact is, He created them … it’s up to some young, enterprising, Christian anthropologist, to come up with a plausible model to explain the process.

One thing that needs mentioning about 2, however, is the last sentence:  “there is nothing in the text that shows segregation based on skin color”.

Even among Kinists who do believe the Babel narrative had a role in the origin of racial diversity, it’s not believed the groups were divided because of “color of skin”.  This is a very naive (and ignorant) characterization of racialist positions, made popular by pop-rhetoric.  “Race” even if colloquially designated by skin color (ie: “hey, there’s a white guy” or “hey, there’s a black guy”) is far more than mere “skin color”.  It’s very disingenuous to imply that differences between racial groups are merely “skin deep”.  There are thousands of years of differences in culture, physical development, and language, being glossed over by politically-correct hipsters, who look down their noses at anyone who isn’t a rabid egalitarian.

And further, the groups separated at Babel, were very likely separated along family lines, no matter what Slick says.

This is because God is not cruel in His punishments.  He wouldn’t destroy the family institution.  Further – we have some empirical evidence of this; if we study the history of human languages, we can see that different geographical regions shared different language groups, strongly suggesting that the same tribes / races, spoke the same family of language, and migrated to the same parts of the world.

3.  All people are descendants of Adam, and ultimately Noah, so that all people share a common ancestor.  This means there is one race, not many.

This is a non-sequitur.

“All people descend from Adam, therefore racial categories don’t exist”.  False.

Most Kinists believe all men descend from Adam, and yet we still believe racial categories exist.  Slick is presupposing some very odd definition of the word “race”.  (See my refutation of this “one race – the human race” mantra, in the Kinism FAQ).

4.  Moses married a Cushite woman…

Ugh… really?  This again?  See my FAQ on Moses’ wife.

5.  Joseph married an Egyptian woman…

Ugh…really?  This objection again?  What I said about “irrelevancy” in my FAQ about Moses’ wife, goes equally well for Joseph:  EVEN IF it’s proven that Joseph married outside his race (and there’s no proof he did), does that warrant wholesale race-mixing today?  Remember, Joseph wasn’t always the most upstanding guy – we don’t want to copy every single thing he ever did (like messing around with divining cups and sorcery, for instance).  Just because Joseph did something, doesn’t automatically mean we’re justified in accepting it as a morally normative act.

There are many supposed cases of “race mixing” in Scripture – none of which, after study, turn out to be either 1. ethically relevant, or 2. legitimate cases of race mixing.

Because these sorts of arguments frequently crop up, I’m working on a project called:  “Shotgun’s Encyclopedia of Biblical Mixing”, where I find, list, and provide commentary (and links to relevant material) on every single supposed case.

So please, non-Kinists … offer as many of these “mixing” illustrations from Scripture as you think you can find.  That keeps me from having to work so hard at digging them all out of the text.

As for Joseph, a case can be made that his wife actually was a Hebrew, which would solve certain internal difficulties in the narrative.

6.  Kinism bases segregation not upon belief, Christian marrying Christian, but on skin color which cannot be found in Scripture.

This argument is purely asinine.

Ok Matt Slick, you only want Christians to marry Christians?  So mothers and sons can marry, (as long as they’re Christian?)  Two men can marry, as long as they’re Christian?  A 35 year old can marry a 12 year old, and you’re ok with that, long as they’re Christian?

No, no … Slick wouldn’t suggest any of that.  When it comes to those social boundaries (which aren’t taboo quite yet in a PC society – although they will be soon) … he’s perfectly fine with admitting they’re legitimate characteristics to consider when thinking of the moral status of a wedding.

It’s only when “skin color” is introduced as a legitimate ethical consideration, that he has a problem…

What Slick really has a problem with is the Godly idea of a racial nation – where families and extended families are the God-ordained social order for society.  He’s so addled by post-Enlightenment political ideology that he doesn’t even realize he’s reading “propositional nationalism” and French Revolutionary ideals into Scripture, which cause him to overlook the inherent support of tribalism all throughout the Bible.

When two people of different races marry, the state is sanctioning the breakdown of Godly order – and Matt Slick is perfectly fine with that.

We Kinists think it’s a tragedy.