I’ve always objected to the “weak” and “strong” Kinist designation.
Aside from the quibbles we might offer about the factual accuracy of Gen5’s observations of Kinist ideological diversity, 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).
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.
 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.
 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.
 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.