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 unceremoniously 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 Kinism.net.  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.

The Damnable Arrogance of the Alternative Right

Once scientism shook the foundations of Christianity, destroying the Faith of many, the western world careened off into a tale spin of ideological anarchy.  A few tried vainly grasping at their Christianity in one of three ways:

1. Some retreated to pietism, fideism, or outright mysticism.  The world, with all its scientific, logical posturing, could not be challenged intellectually.  Science couldn’t be disputed, certainly not by farmers, plumbers, or country preachers.  So they retreated from the world, teaching piety and holy living.  They distanced themselves from the debate all together, and discouraged their youth from asking questions.  (This was a beneficial move for them, as it preserved their Faith, but it didn’t help the battle any.  Our institutions, including state and local governments, as well as academia, were handed to the enemy).

But some took another route:

2.  It was popular to become liberals.  For a time after Darwin, the only way to be an intellectually respectable Christian (so it was thought), was to amalgamate your views with contemporary trends.  Evolution, far from being an enemy, was a welcome house guest.  Scriptures were not meant to be taken literally, and the man Jesus, if He existed at all, was nothing more than a quaint metaphor, useful for instructing enlightened lefties about the ways of moral living.

For the man too stubborn to retreat, and too honorable to amalgamate, only one option remained:

3.  A very small number, fought on.  They refused to be intimidated by the “scientism” of their peers, and sought out cracks and kinks in the armor; they found ways to fight back without compromise.  J. Gresham Machen is the paradigm example of this sort.  I hope to be counted as one of Machen’s “Warrior Children” (though, at this point, I might be considered one of his great grand-children).

All of this tumultuous tale-spinning was certain to affect the conservative movement in America.

Once Christianity was given up, most Conservative intellectuals either rejected their Christianity all together, in favor of scientism, or took one of the first two paths I mentioned above (usually, they took the second).  Very few were educated enough in theology and philosophy to take the third route.

For simplicity’s sake, let’s say all this came to a head in the 1920′s, at which time, any major conservative commentator was not at all openly Christian, or, if he was, it was pushed to the background and unimportant.  His passion for Christ was disguised as passion for the free market or for traditional communities, or some such.

By today’s time, this pseudo-conservative movement has collapsed into complete atheism, with any semblance of Christian appeal either gone completely, or used as trappings to court the evangelical masses, who themselves have taken route 1 mentioned above.  They’re far too stupid to accept scientism or liberalism, it’s thought.

This neo-conservatism fails in its own right, prompting a new movement (fueled, in large part, by the internet) known as the “Alternative Right” – a movement which seeks to remedy the focus of the mainstream right, by looking towards demographic and racial issues, and re-evaluating taboo forms of government like socialism and fascism.

I say all this as a preface to the point of my article – the damnable arrogance of the Alternative Right.

As someone who has taken option 3 above, I’m part of an intellectual tradition which has sought to re-formulate conservatism along consistently Christian lines.  As a matter of fact, the only way to save conservatism, my ilk would argue, is by re-capturing the Christian Spirit of our ancestors and reforging a new and better, medieval world order.

But this puts me at odds with the Alternative Right – all of whom are still infatuated with scientism.  Many, intuitively feeling how empty it is, use pseudo-mystical language, and speak about ambiguous spirituality, but they’re still wholly entrapped by their scientism.  Some even talk about “paganism” (or neo-paganism), but, again, despite their rhetoric, and whatever they may say, are still entrapped by scientism.

A recent article at the website Alternative Right (an online magazine seeking to voice the ideas and concerns of the Alternative Right movement in America), exemplifies this perfectly.  See “Mali Principii Malus Finis” by Juleigh Howard Hobson.  And be sure to check out the comments section, which is rife with naive adherents to “scientism” who are offering their commentary and criticisms from that stand-point, without (in most cases) even realizing they’re doing so.

“Scientism” is so thoroughly bred in their bones, they are unable to consider option 3 I cited above.

They’re unable to understand philosophy – I mean real, western philosophy, not pseudo-profound babbling from alt-right ideologues, who talk as if western philosophy ended with Frederick Nietzsche.  I’ve never seen these people analytically evaluate a conceptual scheme, or define their terms in precise language, (then actually stick to said language).  Evola, for instance, doesn’t open his writing with a thorough conceptual analysis of the word “spiritual”.  He’s got plenty of high-sounding and flowery language, though.

If any of these scientistic Alt Righters were forced to present a systematic metaphysical view, I doubt they’d be able to do so.  They’re far more concerned with ethics anyway – but even then, they only do their ethics on a practical level, choosing to neglect the philosophical foundations required to support their various assertions.

This is all indicative of naive empiricists, who were raised in “scientism” as a religion and are so arrogant about it, so fully convinced that it’s true, they’ve literally become unable to reason outside of it.  They simply cannot consider other paradigms (those who are able to do so, have likely been trained for it by a philosophy department at the local university – but even in these cases, they’re unable to ever seriously think outside their own paradigm, seeing objectivity, instead, as a sort of rhetorical ploy).

Until the Alternative Right drops this damnable arrogance, which might also be described as their damnable naivety, they’ll continue down the same path of irrelevancy as the neo-conservative movement, only with less flare, because they’re not as well funded.

Scientism, and whatever mystical, pagan-like trappings the Alt-Right wishes to wrap it in, is a dead man’s game.

Only the passion of the Holy Spirit can rescue the Western World – and you’ll find none of that in the Alt-Right article I linked to above.

Early Thoughts on a Kinist Ecclesiology

Kinists represent a unique conflation of ideals – a merging of a few different rivers of thought.

Many Kinists were involved in the Christian Reconstruction movement (with all it’s doting on anarcho-capitalism), for instance.

Many Kinists are also infatuated with the Southern Agrarians, and “third-way” economics.

So, with the merging of Reconstructionist and Agrarian streams, Kinists are in an excellent position to provide commentary on proper government; and while many Kinists have yet to try it – they’re especially primed for discussions about church government (ecclesiology) in particular.

It’s no secret that the Reconstructionists have had their fair share of ecclesiastical craziness; from Rushdoony’s home-churching to the attempts at starting a theonomic denomination, Reconstructionists have realized the need for addressing ecclesiology, but haven’t been able to effectively do so.

Add the Kinist’s racial concerns into this mix, and new ecclesiastical views should be expected.

But what’s wrong with the theology of the church today?  Why the need for new views?

Well, to put it kindly, there is a lot of confusion in Christendom over how the church is to be governed and how the church is to interact with the state.

This has lead to my own attempt to find clarity on the issue.  I am not well-learned in the historical debates concerning ecclesiology, and I’m not presumptuous enough to pretend I have anything new to add.  Nevertheless, I have concerns that I will look towards addressing while studying; also, I’ll primarily try and stay within the Reformed tradition, though, I understand that might get touchy.  Here are some of my preliminary thoughts:

Proposition 1.  The Church Universal is segregated by space.

The word “church” might be understood as every covenant-member who has ever existed or ever will exist.  Call this the “Invisible Church”.

Well and good so far.

Then we have this thing referred to as the “Visible Church” – an institution and bureaucracy which presumes (for whatever reason) to represent the invisible church.

But we run into an immediate problem here:  the Visible Church can only ever represent a small minority of the Invisible Church, specifically:  those people worshiping at that particular location.

Thus, within the Visible Church, we have more distinctions.

The Church Particular is the local meeting of those presumed to be covenant-members and the Church Universal is the class of all Church Particulars.

There is a lot that can (and has) been said about these distinctions (and not everyone will agree with how I’ve presented them), but for the time being, I’ve tried to simplify things to avoid denominational squabbles so that I might focus on a particular aspect of all this:

The Church Universal includes *all* particular churches.  But, we humans are finite.  We are segregated from each other by space.  We all have a community in which we live and usually an individual Christian isn’t willing to drive more than thirty minutes to worship.

So, the Church Universal is segregated by space.  A Christian in France cannot attend worship with a Christian in England, without travel and lots of expense.

This leads to proposition 2:

Proposition 2.  The Church Invisible *is* Israel

It’s my understanding that equating the Church Invisible with Israel, where “Israel” means:  “all covenant members,” is routine in the Reformed community (especially given the prevalence of amillennial end time views).   In case any reader is interested in an exegetical case defending the claim, see American Vision’s article here.

I assume (as granted) that the Church Invisible is numerically identical with “Israel” where “Israel” means:  “all covenant members”.

Proposition 3.  (From 1 and 2):  Israel is segregated by space.

If Israel is the Church Invisible and the Church Invisible has the quality of being represented by the Church Universal, and the Church Universal is segregated by Space, then by extension, Israel is segregated by space.  (Again, keep in mind, I mean:  all covenant-members, are segregated by space).

This is where things get hairy.

Proposition 4.  Israel is a state (or more properly: a Kingdom that is international in scope; deduced from proposition 3).

First, the word “state” is ambiguous and has been used in many different ways.  While I can’t give a full accounting of the word now, it’s important to note I do *not* mean it in the normal sense of a governing bureaucracy.

Also, the word “international” is ambiguous.  While I do think Israel is “multinational” (in the sense of including many nationalities), what I have in mind here is the more colloquial understanding.  I mean, Israel spans many different continents.  My purposes in this article don’t require a discussion of various “nationalities”, instead I am aiming at a discussion of the so-called “church / state” relationship.

Proposition 5.  Some local bodies of Israel (Church Particulars) may be in environments not governed by any other state, and thus are free to govern themselves.

This could happen hypothetically.

Proposition 6.  In this environment, the church must govern itself.

Who else will do so?

Proposition 7.  The church, in this case, *is* the state.

So, to sum up:

1.  The Church Universal is segregated by space.

2.  The Church Invisible *is* Israel.

3.  (From 1 and 2):  Israel is segregated by space.

4.  Israel is a state (or more properly: a Kingdom that is international in scope; deduced from proposition 3).

5.  Some local bodies of Israel (Church Particulars) may be in environments not governed by any other state, and thus are free to govern themselves.

6.  In this environment, the church must govern itself.

7.  The church, in this case, *is* the state.

Conclusion - the so-called “church / state” distinction, so prevalent in contemporary western thought and well-represented in numerous volumes of church literature, is (at best) confused, and at worst, terribly mistaken.

The church and the state are the exact same entity, and should be thought of as such, especially when in conflict with non-church states.

A Kinist Accounting of Personal Identity

“The greatest harm one can do to a person is to treat him as if he were only an instrument.” ~ Richard Weaver

“I read in a periodical the other day that the fundamental thing is how we think of God.  By God Himself, it is not!  How God thinks of us is …infinitely more important!” ~ C.S. Lewis

Despite the daunting title, the theme of this essay is easy to understand (though, as a subject, it has complexities I hope to explore in future installments).   I simply aim to suggest a possible solution to a philosophical objection to the Christian faith, offered by a particularly militant atheist (who is also a virulent anti-white activist).  And, while every Christian should be interested in these matters, my suggested solution will be unique to the Kinist camp, as only Kinists have a racially self-conscious anthropology with the intellectual capital sufficient for answering the objection.

This atheist isn’t famous enough to cite (so I will not publish his name).  The only reason I’ve chosen to interact with him is the subtle nature of his villainy.  He’s combined infamous arguments against Christianity in clever (though twisted) ways, that bear upon me particularly as a Christian and racial realist;  a refutation should benefit the wider Kinist community.

The Argument

He claims religious language is meaningless, and more specifically, the idea of a “person” is incoherent, especially when applied to other abstract (and equally meaningless) concepts like “God”.  Also, since our fellow is a Marxist, he believes (as all Marxists do – see note 1), that all humans are equal in value – it’s the economic (read: natural) forces at work in the world which separate and cause division.  This is not just true of the races, but for the sexes as well.

Our villain wishes to combine these two elements of his thought, proving (by lack of coherency in the word “person”) that all humans are nothing more than complex machines, crafted by nature and their surroundings, to carry out tasks with varying degrees of sophistication.  Some machines, by virtue of their lucky treatment in nature, have more sophisticated abilities; other, less fortunates, have never gotten the chance to reach higher potential.  But all have equal potential, and none have the dignity of being persons.

Knee Jerk Replies

“But this is silly” the Christian is tempted to reply at first glance.  “How can there not be persons?  We see them all around us.”   Yes, but our atheist scoundrel is ruthlessly clever.  In the world of ivory tower discourse, where philosophical absurdities are discussed with leisure, there has been much said about the nature of “person”.

What might a person be, exactly?  How might a “person” be distinguished from non personal things?

Well, first, we might claim “free will”, but there is a ready response for this.  Free will is nothing more than non-compulsive decision making power, so our atheist would argue.  And machines can (theoretically) be given this ability.   Further, what of the counter-examples?  Sometimes, those we consider “persons” are without the ability to choose events as they’d like.  Are they not persons? (See note 2).

Someone might claim a “person” has intent to do something, which implies consciousness.  But our scoundrel is ready for these objections as well.  What is consciousness (and intentionality) other than mere qualitative brain states brought about by certain combinations of chemicals and neuron activity?   If this is the case, then as before, certain complicated machines could attain “personhood” in the near future, and that seems absurd to most Christians.

The Christian might turn to irrationality at this point, and say, “Fine.  Maybe I can’t define “person”.  Still, I simply choose to believe in it and continue using the word anyway,” in which case, the scoundrel berates us for being anti-rational and having no good reason to hold our beliefs.  This position has a sort of fatal romance to it, but the atheist will claim victory, thinking he’s reduced Christianity to irrationality.  The Christian, with hunched shoulders and lowered eyes, says “Yes.  You’re right, atheist.  Our position is meaningless posturing.”

An even worse response is when the Christian accepts the atheists’ argument and says:  “Well, all of the mechanistic, sophisticated machines out there, are simply called persons.”  This is another form of giving in, and is a step closer to atheism.  Unfortunately, many Christians (unwittingly) share our scoundrel’s Marxist anthropology, believing all humanity has the exact same potential within, and will have no problem admitting, therefore, that “person” is a superfluous concept, used as more of a social convention than a  term with any real connotative meaning. (See note 3).

This position doesn’t seem intuitive.  We want to claim that there is something different about being a ‘person’, something that sets us apart from all the rest of creation.  So this move will have to be rejected along with the others.

The Kinist Solution

All of the knee-jerk reactions I’ve surveyed play the atheist’s game.  They go to his home field and try to gain the advantage.  This is unfortunate.  The Christian needs to take a few steps back and look at the field from afar and see what to make of it.

We should begin by asking if it’s true that all religious language is meaningless.  Attacking religious language is a time-honored tactic of the atheists, and has managed to intimidate many would-be Christian apologists over the years.  We shouldn’t simply accept it as a premise, then.  (See note 4).

As Christians, however, we believe in God at the outset of any philosophical discussion.  We approach any questions about language (or about anything), with the Christian God fully presupposed to begin with.  We believe everything Scripture says as well as the worldview implied by it.  So when asked what a “person” is, we already believe a “person” is whatever Scripture says a person is.  (See note 5).   We take this on God’s authority, because we love Him too much to ever question His word.  It remains then, for us to define “person” from within a Christian, theological context.

But even with this observation, we’re still left with a big job.  Within a Christian context, we can agree that persons have free-will, consciousness, and intentionality.  But what more? (See note 6).

Kinists, who presuppose the Christian worldview without shame, should think about the writings of two important men, on these matters: Richard Weaver, and C.S. Lewis.

About persons, Weaver has this to say:

“It seems a threshold fact that personality is some kind of integration.  The individual whom we regard as having authentic personality appears to possess a center, and everything that he does is in relation to this.  When such a person performs an act, no part of his being seems uninvolved; what happens on the outer circumference is duly controlled by the integrating center.  We sense, sometimes with a feeling of envy, that this individual is a unitary being and thus “in possession of himself”.  Of course, there are poorly integrated or disintegrated “personalities,” but these we classify as unformed or degenerate just because they fall short in this property.  The true personality is a psychic unity, preserving its identity and giving a sort of thematic continuity to the acts of the individual.”

So, to Weaver, a “person” is a thematic continuity – a psychic unity.  If he stopped there, his account would fall to the ravages of our atheist scoundrel as well, but Weaver goes on to note a peculiarity.  He notices that different personalities have different powers of insight into different matters.  Freely admitting that, at times, naive individuals have better understood situations than he, Weaver opines that the Creator has given different individuals different ways of cogently apprehending reality.

“This selective relation of the person to the totality may suggest that personality is the final ethical tie-up of the individual.  It is the special form of the individual in expressing the values he has recognized”.

Recognized from God, Weaver admits.  So Weaver is saying, in essence, that a “person” is an outlet, or an Earthly concentration of reflected, Godly dignity.  And without this reflection of the good, the person would not be a person at all. (See note 7).

This unique answer to the problem of “personality” has within it, a fundamental notion of diversity.  As such, if we’re to present a truly Christian view of “person” we cannot also accept a Marxist anthropology which would have, at base, all men being equal in their reflection of God.

C.S. Lewis picks up the theme of man’s glory being a reflection of God in his classic essay “The Weight of Glory”.  “Personality” must be seen as an aspect of God’s diverse relationship with humanity.  Lewis’ words are so excellent, I’ll end this essay satisfied they have the final say to the mechanistic filth of our atheist scoundrel:

“There are no ordinary people.  You have never talked to a mere mortal.  Nations, cultures, arts, civilizations – these are mortal, and their life is to ours as the life of a gnat.  But it is immortals whom we joke with, work with, marry, snub, and exploit – immortal horrors or everlasting splendors…Next to the Blessed Sacrament itself, your neighbor is the holiest object presented to your senses.  If he is your Christian neighbor, he is holy in almost the same way, for in him also Christ vere latitat- the glorifier and the glorified, Glory Himself, is truly hidden.




1.  For an investigation into the relationship between forced integration and Marxist anthropology, read Richard Weaver’s essay “Integration Is Communization” published in National Review, July 1957, and reprinted in “Defense of Tradition” the Liberty Fund edition, pg. 555.

2.  Debates about personality, especially as they pertain to arguments about free will, get very complex and it’s beyond the scope of my outline here to discuss them.  Our atheist friend alludes to the philosopher Galen Strawson’s arguments against “Free-Will-As-Indicator-of-Peronality” which are relatively famous in the literature.  See Strawson’s essay “The Self” in the collection of essays “Personal Identity” edited by Raymond Martin and John Barresi, for further study.  While I do believe “free will” is a marker of “persons”, I don’t think it’s the best marker, and as a layman, I find Strawson’s work daunting; irrelevant, but daunting nonetheless.  I don’t expect to be able to provide a strong critique of it any time soon.

3.  I don’t know of any statistic that will prove most Christians hold a Marxist anthropology, but a quick survey of popular Christian literature would prove my point.  John Piper, R.C. Sproul, Douglas Wilson, and an endless army of others, all support (through their writing) Marx’s anthropology.  And should we suppose that 70 percent of all the books sold by these men, were purchased by ideological supporters, then we would have a good argument that most all English-speaking Christians, are also Marxists in their view of man.

4.  An important source for this claim, as well as for my argument against the incoherency of religious language, is Dr. Bahnsen’s lecture on religious language in his “Philosophy of Christianity” series, available from Covenant Media Foundation.  Dr. Bahnsen surveys the arguments of the Logical Positivists like A.J. Ayer, Carnap, and later, Anthony Flew.  Also, Dr. Bahnsen expounds on the unique presuppositionalist approach to this problem.  Another good source on the history of arguments against religious language, is Gordon Clark’s “Language and Theology”.  While Clark and Bahnsen’s theological approaches differ, they both offer excellent deconstructions of the positivists.

5.  Those in the know will immediately recognize a Van Tillian (or “presuppositional”) approach at this juncture.  As wonderful as this apologetic methodology is, it’s beyond the scope of this essay to expound on it.  If you’re new to Presuppositionalism, check out Michael Butler’s free apologetics course, available online, from Sermon Audio.com.

6.  There is also the breath of God (or man’s spirit) to be considered, as well as the doctrine of the image of God in man.  Both of these are complex and ambiguous concepts, and while they have important implications for the topic at hand, it’s not immediately clear how they relate to it directly.  Think, for example, about angels.  We might want to say that they are persons, but we’re not sure if they’re created in God’s image or not, and do angels have souls?  These sorts of questions will have to be clarified later.

7.  These insights are all contained in Richard Weaver’s excellent essay “Individuality and Modernity” printed in “The Defense of Tradition” pg. 73.

You Might be a Kinist If …

Dr. Larry Bray, who wont (for the life of him) have a discussion with an actual Kinist or try to correct our damnable views, prefers not to confront us head on. Instead, he lobs cowardly salvos at us from the safety of his Facebook wall-of-censorship.

From the esteemed Dr. Bray:

You might be a Kinist if you think that…
1 – “Marxist” is a word that should be frequently used
2 – Babel was separated by race rather than language
3 – Paul was wrong for rebuking Peter (Gal 2:11-12)
4 – God shouldn’t have punished Miriam for complaining about Moses’ Ethiopian wife (Num 12:1)
5 – “Different” and “unequal” are synonyms
6 – “Race” and “culture” are synonyms
7 – Loving all people means not loving your own race
8 – Christ’s genealogy would be better off without Ruth
9 – Paul’s lost letter instructs the Roman church to split into two: Jew and Gentile
10 – Man is defined by race rather than federal headship


Concerning 1:

As good Christians, who are concerned with accurate scholarship, we want to strive to accurately (and adequately) apply terms and labels. And given how most Christians feel very strongly about asserting politically correct racial-norms (which are all based on neo-Marxist social theory) calling them “neo-Marxists” or referring to their rhetoric as “Marxist” is accurate. If someone is offended by being correctly labeled, they need to change their position.

Concerning 2:

I’m not sure Kinists advocate this position. Truth is, the Bible (sadly) doesn’t tell us explicitly where, when, and how ‘race’ (as we use the word colloquially) arose in history. I do believe various people-groups arose from the Babel curse, and should be respected accordingly. When God creates diversity, we should respect it.

Concerning 3:

Of course, no apostle (when speaking with God’s authority) is “wrong”. Paul wasn’t “wrong” to correct Peter. But Mr. Bray is “wrong” to suggest that Paul’s rebuke of Peter doubles as a rebuke of Kinism. He needs to demonstrate it – (but that would require him actually conversing with a Kinist, and he’s not willing to do that).  Ask yourself, does the Galatians chapter 2 passage really refute ethnic nationalism?  It doesn’t do so in any direct way.  Mr. Bray is stretching to reach for a far-out implication.

Also, see Adi’s excellent take on this passage.

Concerning 4:

God punished Miriam *AND* Aaron; why? We don’t know exactly, but to speculate that it was because they were upset that Moses married outside his race, goes beyond the Scriptural data. Most commentators (from Matthew Henry and Gary North, all the way to the rabidly anti-Kinist Jay Daniel Hays) suggest that Moses’ wife was unduly influencing his decisions, causing Miriam and Aaron to get jealous. Further, it’s very likely that Moses wife was Zipporah the Midianite, (a cousin-ethnicity to Moses, and of the same race anyway).

Concerning 5:

No Kinist believes that “different” and “unequal” are synonymous, nor do we use the words synonymously in our rhetoric.

Men and women, for instance, are “different”, but also “equal” under the law.  (They’re also un-equal in terms of physical strengths and weaknesses).  Also, people of many races are “different” but under equal condemnation of God’s law (and in equal need of the saving work of Christ).  But we might also say that they’re “unequal” in terms of gifts, abilities, and talents.

Concerning 6:

Kinsits might sometimes confuse the words “race” and “culture” when they’re speaking fast and loose, but we do formally admit that there is a difference between the two. It’s the alienists (like Mr. Bray) who usually like speaking about “culture” as a code word for “race”. We Kinists clearly and self-consciously distinguish between the two.

Concerning 7:

I don’t even understand this one. We Kinists note that loving “all” men requires degrees of devotion, with our closest family coming first, our kin next, people and race third, then all men in general, last. (However we might slice up the pie, it must be noted, that our love must come in varying degrees and be an outward working “concentric” ring of affinity).

Perhaps some Kinist once told Mr. Bray that if he “loved everyone” then he “loved no one”, and from this, Mr. Bray typed out point 7?  If that’s the case then, a quick word:

If you “love everyone” it means that you have the exact same emotional disposition towards every living person, and that you have no special emotional disposition towards anyone.  It’s analogous to calling all men “brother”.  If everyone is your brother, then the word “brother” becomes meaningless.  If you love everyone, then the word “love” becomes meaningless; we’d have to find new words to use in its place to describe our special emotional dispositions towards certain individuals.

Concerning 8:

Ruth was very likely a Hebrew.

Concerning 9:

Paul’s lost letter *really* teaches that we’re to all blend into a mocha-colored dream world, without any sort of social distinctions, and that prophets named Marx and Rousseau would come, declaring the true Gospel and making way for the holy ones.

Concerning 10:

I don’t know what Mr. Bray means here by “defining” a man. Why does he use the word “man” for instance? God sets up the boundaries by which men are to define themselves, and race, while not the most important boundary, is certainly legitimate and important and should not be neglected.

Any time Mr. Bray would like a discussion with a Kinist (so he can quit embarrassing himself with these ridiculous straw-men), we’re here and waiting.

The Irrelevancy of Theonomic Hipsters

One of the main problems with theonomic hipsters (to be defined presently)  is they’ve lost the bravery that comes from strong convictions.

I don’t think they believe their own propositions anymore. Theonomy has become purely academic for them.

Dr. Bahnsen believed in what he was doing.  He would go out into the world and take on all challengers. The biggest problem for Bahnsen’s generation of theonomists was the detractors who were more willing to attack straw-men than actual theonomy. (In one case, these anti-theonomic detractors couldn’t even spell Rushdoony’s name correctly! – how’s that for scholarship?)

This generation? The David News, the Daniel Ritchies, and the Brian Schwertleys? They close themselves off into small ideological enclaves and boot, ban, censor, and mute whomever disagrees with them.  That is not an atmosphere conducive to theological growth. It’s also indicative of people who no longer have the courage of their convictions.

“Kinism” is growing by leaps and bounds; instead of confronting it head on, these cowards ‘cower’ in their enclaves and lob irrational, insulting, and hastily-thought salvos against Kinist arguments.  (And in some cases, they can’t even spell our terms correctly).

But they’ll never come out of their hiding and have a public debate. I bet not even the magical negros Voddie Baucham or Anthony Bradley (neither are theonomists) would “lower” themselves to address us. Certainly neither Doug Wilson nor Brian Schwertley will (at least: not address us in a venue where they might be questioned or challenged).

The entire movement is closing itself off, packing up, and moving to irrelevancy.  The only thing they’re passionate about, is defending politically correct norms.

And, this is ironic.  Instead of halting their downward spiral, they’re aiding the descent by moving more and more into the “hip” horizon.  And since I used Dr. Bahnsen as a paragon of theonomic propriety, I have to admit that even he was prone to this sort of thing.

He’d use hip basketball illustrations, or make his students laugh by allusions to rock and roll – and he would always (whenever given the chance) gush over egalitarian rhetoric.

But, that said, he says helpful things concerning race and he was still a “realist” when it came to segregation:

It was a rainy afternoon and I was half-napping while listening to an obscure lecture from Dr. Bahnsen.  All of a sudden, he claimed that he thought segregation was a “very natural thing” … Say WHAAA???

From lecture 6 in his “Michael Martin Under the Microscope” seminar, 1 hour and 8 min. in:

“Why is it that the Vietnamese who have come to this country, have congregated over here in .. in … North Garden Grove, you know, in Little Saigon? (Well, of course some people think that it’s evil and all that, and I’m not going to get into it); I just think it’s a very natural thing … “

Rushdoony and Otto Scott were also prone to such comments, as Kinists have pointed out ad nauseam.  Only they’d use the word “nigger” without shame, and openly rejected race mixing.  Otto Scott was even conscious of the “jew” question (bless his heart).

Francis Nigel Lee one ups all of them, by openly advocating for racial nationalism and directly confronting racial issues from a Reformed, theonomic, and postmillennial perspective.   (I’ve often suggested that Francis Nigel Lee be considered the Kinist’s patron, precisely because of his direct tackling of these issues).

It’s interesting to note that Dr. Bahnsen, in his two lectures against “racism”, never mentions the positions of these men, who many consider to be his ideological compatriots.  Whatever the case, these sorts of racially sane views are not just rejected by today’s “hip” theonomists (who lust after worldly approval), but are severely and publicly damned.

But as Kinism continues to grow, one day, these hipsters will be forced to publicly debate one of us, and I hope to God I’m there for it.