Traveling Knight


“Still the knight is young
 and traveling on with pleasure.
Grant him wishes well,
luck in the fullest measure.
Bid you all adieu,
stories to keep and treasure.
When he’s passing through,
ever and on he goes…”

I tweaked those lyrics; I hope the Willis Clan doesn’t mind. They suit me better now. And not just me, but all Christians. We’re all going ever and on. If you’ve stumbled across my blog and you’re not a Christian, you’re not exempt. Thinketh not ye are safe! The refining light of Heaven issues from a terrible being who spares not the wicked from celestial fire…at least I hope He doesn’t.

Don’t hate me! Don’t hate me! I don’t mean I’m wishing you were in Hell – that’d be unkind to my readers. Rather, I’m wishing your submission to the forge of Angels. Consider MacDonald:


That flashy intro out of the way, what’s the point of this evening’s post?

I’m traveling onward. Again. Ever and on.

My criticisms of Kinism – not new or capricious – have recently garnered attention. While not necessarily good attention, I consider it a small boon and will say a quick word while I’ve got an audience:

The trouble I have (had?) isn’t so much with the doctrines of Kinism, although I have always had small disagreements hither and yon with this or that talking-point. Rather, looking back, I think I was wrestling with the Reformed faith itself. I’ve noted here (and others have affirmed elsewhere) the importance of Calvinist dogma in laying the intellectual ground of Kinist polemics. There is no better or more thorough defense of racialism in the entire English speaking – perhaps in the entire white – world. No Alternative Rightist, no white nationalist philosopher, no Darwinian HBD guru, has as intimate a grasp of the underlying epistemological issues nor have any of them developed such an intricate, worldview-in-scope philosophical system to underlie their political philosophy. None. Of. Them.

I defy *anyone* to say otherwise – and even now, while I’m something of a pariah in official Kinist channels (and am in some doubt about the Reformed tradition), I could easily defeat such a challenge. Probably within a matter of minutes. They’d be reduced to profanity and sputtering about how useless philosophy is (I’ve seen it happen many times in my career as a Kinist). There are, of course, many who come close; there are some sharp guys in the pro-white community and I don’t want to disparage their work or discourage them. Nevertheless, the fact of the matter is, whenever a Kinist can be bothered to write the “Kinist Manifesto”, it’ll be the most thorough intellectual defense of the white race ever to have been written (assuming they do a good job in explicating the doctrines).

There’s a problem in the Reformed tradition however.

I’ve mentioned this elsewhere at Shotgun Barrel Straight (and in some of the podcasts I’ve participated in), but there was a split in American Calvinism, corresponding to the North / South divide in America. Refer to it as the “New School / Old School” debate if you’d like, but for those who aren’t interested in arcane Presbyterian history: the North (except Princeton) was radically “liberal” while the South, in whole, was Conservative. It’s difficult to lay out the theological issues specifically since there were so many of them. Nathan Strickland and I did a podcast on Southern Presbyterianism and Kinism which is still on Soundcloud if any of you are interested (the bad audio is completely my fault – I apologize). You can all guess: the Southern Calvinist tradition was lost along with the political South.

What happened afterwards was a spiritual tragedy. Northern religiosity spread throughout the entire country – this has been documented and analyzed elsewhere, especially by the Abbeville Institute (search their articles if you’re interested; also see “Strangers in Zion” by William Glass for a concise study of how “fundamentalism” in the South is an aspect of Northern religious tradition).

For better or worse, this “spirit” (if you will) dominated all of the Reformed tradition although, years later, the conservative wing of it spawned the Christian Reconstruction movement which later spawned Kinism. Kinism, however great, is, nevertheless, mired in the Northern Calvinist religiosity. To the extent most Kinist are Southerners however, they’ve managed to mitigate the negative effects and yet, the total devotion to a dogmatic system is, perhaps, in varying degrees, a disease in all modern religious expression.

And however mean and childish (fill-in-the-blank with whatever other criticism you prefer) you think I am, I’m simply not comfortable with this “Dogma-Uber-Alles” attitude. Hence my struggle with Kinism – a struggle perhaps more with a dogmatic religiosity than with the Kinists themselves (most of whom are still very dear friends – I even still like the ones who claim to be my friends while publicly psychoanalyzing me).

What am I now if not a Calvinist? What am I traveling on to? Onwards and upwards? (Or, downwards if you’re convinced strict adherence to a system is the path to Heaven)? Well that’s just it, isn’t it? What does it mean to be a Calvinist? Is it that I believe in some typically Calvinist doctrines? If so, then maybe I’m still a Calvinist. Or is it that I’m a formal member of an organized church? That, I’m certainly not. Or is it that I participate in and identify as a member of a certain culture, with certain jargon and social habits? If it’s that – and I suspect it is, even if a Calvinist says otherwise – then I’m not at all a Calvinist.

In fact, it’s only been recently that I’ve stopped caring about dogma at all. There are far greater and more important truths about our Father than how His liver might work in conjunction with His pancreas. He’s not on the theologian’s autopsy table.

Call me a “Christian Romantic” if you need a label. My mentors in the Faith are the likes of Lewis, MacDonald, and Owen Barfield…although, don’t suppose that’s an exclusive list. I value Spurgeon and Machen as well. Far more so than anything I’ve ever read in Calvin or Edwards.

At any rate, I still care for many who claim to be Kinists; I don’t suppose for a minute they believe in abstractions over flesh and blood, or dogma over bonds of honor. I’ll never forget the fellowship and in-the-trenches-type battling we’ve done together (many of my Kinist friends came to my defense when I was being slandered by the national media, some even risking exposure and doxxing on my behalf).

…but I’m sorry. I can’t continue traveling the Calvinist path. God is taking me (quite against my will, truth be told) onwards and upwards. To higher truths and a stronger Faith than I ever imagined.

I truly hope He does the same for you (although I pray the flames aren’t as hot for you as they are for me).

This entry was posted in Best of Shotgun and tagged , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

23 Responses to Traveling Knight

  1. Come back to Identity Dixie.

  2. Joe Putnam says:

    Hey Shotgun,
    One thing that stood out to me was your reference to someone writing a potential “Kinist Manifesto”. I had wondered why there was not a book on Kinism. It would be a good idea. It would be best if it were written by someone who had been a Kinist since it was first articulated (ala Luke in chapter 1) about 20 years ago. (Of course the concepts are older than that, I just mean the first formal, pubic Kinist statement). If people other than Kinists are to read it, it should be no more than 100 pages in length.

    • Adam Grey says:

      Joe, you’re right, there should be a newcomer-friendly book for folks to read on this worldview.

      • Fr. John+ says:

        And from those who have witnessed the entirety from the Christian Reconstructionist crowd, through Little Geneva, to SWB, to…. well, let’s see.. who could that be? Hmmmm?
        Dang it, I volunteer.

  3. Adam Grey says:

    Shotgun, good post. Sounds like what you’re really rejecting is the Northern Calvinistic tradition, not Calvinism. I agree, the many “thou shalt nots” and “thou shalts” of that tradition are numerous and often are unnecessarily exclusionary. I’ve heard that the Southern Presbyterians and Southerners in general were more freethinking and tolerant than their Northern counterparts. Based on your research, is that correct?

    I myself find comfort in the Dabneys and Thornwells of the world, and within Christendom am much more of an ecumenical person than not.

  4. Lynda says:

    Stay with the Biblical worldview.

    There is a new race: the God/man race which is being baptised into Christ – the Last Adam and the Second Man. The new race strikes the root of its existence in Adam and claims its racial, national heritage and culture in the Church that was planted in its own race and nation. It Is baptised into Christ its head and King, nourished in the Bread of Heaven, sojourning through its Adamic legacy of blood and soil in world and time, conquers death and hell and obtains the resurrection from the dead in the second man, the Lord from Heaven. And, yes, there is a new Eve also. .

    When that new race is revealed to the Evangelist: ” as the great multitude which no man could number” he sees representatives of all nations, tribes and tongues. This Adamic inheritance is part of the identity of the Redeemed and recognizable for all eternity.
    Like this.

    How Green was my Valley. Cwm Rhondda. Bread of Heaven

    • I can’t believe in ridiculous fairy tales like the theory of evolution, so I find all those “dual-seedline” theories (which hinge on “pre-adamic” animals, etc.), particularly hard to swallow.

      • Fr. John+ says:

        And yet, Africans who are part and parcel of the ‘modern’ era, have written books to corroborate this view, [ ‘Black Man: Not Descendant of Adam” by Solomon Jegede Enaboakpe] which has some VERY impressive credentials behind it- even if one does not hold to ALL of the particulars, one can certainly see that SOME of them are historically held by the Adam of Europe.

      • I don’t care what Africans have to say about anything, really, unless it’s a bit of their charming folk wisdom (which the older ones are particularly good at sharing).

        As for that “theory”…

        …there are two types of evolutionist. The one I can tolerate. The other (the vast majority) are insufferable. The tolerable ones are aware enough of philosophy to know they don’t *have* to be evolutionists. They choose it because they think it’s poetic or they think (despite all evidence) that the Bible really teaches it. Those are the noble believers. C.S. Lewis comes to mind, as do a handful of men at Westminster Seminary (…although, unlike Lewis, I wouldn’t consider Oliphant or Poythress to be gifted theologians).

        The other type of evolutionist is the one who naively supposes, along with all modernity, that he must believe in the theory because the evidence, facts, and data force it. This is not only ignorant (…ignorant of the utter ruin modernist philosophers have brought down on themselves…), but it’s blasphemous. It’s akin to the white girl who only dates blacks because she’s been taught all her life they’re superior to her own men. She gives in psychologically. She allows the narrative to control her most intimate actions. The shame! What type of man, ignorant or not, allows the controlling paradigm of modernity to guide how he reads and understands holy Scripture?!

        He’s either dull or a coward.

    • Fr. John+ says:

      I don’t know what brought about your mentioning ‘evolution’- I certainly wasn’t talking about it, but about Christian Identitarian constructs….

  5. Hey Shotgun, I think clearing up what’s meant by the title “Calvinist” is always worthy of describing , at least from time to time, and always when speaking with unbelievers. All titles and even “isms” tend to take on many different meanings. Aside from the unregenerate reading into things wrongly and attributing whatever it is that they want concerning issues and topics that rub them the wrong way, titles can really become nothing more than a self righteous label worn with pride an false piety, not having anything to do with anything edifying. In regards to keeping or abandoning titles and isms altogether, I think it’s more of a matter of how they’re used in conversation. Are they used in a way that is helpful when describing base principles concerning Christian faith or edifying the church, perhaps clearing up misinformation that an unbeliever might have are they misleading trails of thought that affirm nothing more than false piety parroted like trend from one person to the other.

    Then there’s the question of how theology would increase if labels couldn’t be used to describe sections of an overall system? I’d say, as far as a strict adherence to a system is concerned, what’s really the issue at hand is the ability to rightly distinguish between what’s deduced from Scripture and what’s nothing more than an idea that’s plausible and then making the mistake of building upon it. I don’t think of Calvin and Edwards so much as being guilty of some sort of deviated system, in fact I think they both expounded on subjects having to do with perspective and ultimately Sovereignty. I’d say sometimes Edwards could have expressed a little more context while expounding on how individuals aren’t entitled and are deserving of wrath. But even so, it seems to be an important area to take on, the subject of entitlement altogether. One of the great things about Spurgeon, is that all of his sermons while being very meaningful and rich in wisdom, he never branches far from God’s word.


    • I haven’t read anything from Owen Barfield, but now looking forward to, glad to hear about him being a good writer.

      To onwards and upwards.

      • T-Bone!

        I should have guessed it was you.

        Many of my friends (who also claim to be Calvinists) have the idea, either implicitly believed or explicitly stated, that the ideal Reformed man forces his base nature into conformity with the cold anvil of dogma, strengthening it by forge. You can see how some of them even insult me by claiming I’m being “emotional” or “melodramatic” or “acting like a woman…” etc. When I try to explain to them that reason must be subordinate to the regenerated heart, they reply with knee jerk naivete: “…but you had to use reason to come up with that view!”

        …they say this even knowing how many years I’ve spent doing philosophy and using the same sort of “gotcha” type rhetoric on my enemies. How, indeed, could I be so stupid as to have missed something that simple?!

        I’ve expounded on this elsewhere but I have come to believe (adamantly so) that God regenerates our hearts so that our feelings can guide our reason – as they should. The better a man is at this, the quicker he reacts. He gets his mind out of the way, so to speak. Shane the gunslinger didn’t stop to reason through complex ethical arguments before shooting the bad guys. Rather, he relied on years of solid Christian breeding and a regenerate instinct.

        There’s a reason why every non-Christian philosopher will never submit to a presuppositionalist. The inherent weakness of presuppositionalism is that no matter how the apologist criticizes the unbeliever’s worldview, the unbeliever will always wiggle and squirm to another option. And given how infinitely complex our universe is, there’s an almost infinite number of ways for him to squirm. He’ll never submit until his heart changes and when his heart changes, all the intellectual problems he claimed to have had (which were really sophistical pretensions to hide his hatred of the divine) will all of a sudden fall away by the force of his new emotional disposition.

        It’s the heart we need to go after, not the mind. That’s the way God does it and it’s the way the best of our poets have done it.

      • Lynda says:

        Owen Barfield is essential reading for anyone who has sojourned in the wasteland of Jew U and who is serious about their conversion to Christ in the Revolutionary Era (inaugurated 1789) . Barfield was a friend of the Inklings at Oxford and his thinking was fundamental to C.S. Lewis work The Abolition of Man – still one of the great reads.

  6. I see what you mean, now that you describe the types you’ve been dealing with and yeah I’d say that anyone forcing their base nature into a religious dogma doesn’t know what it means to be in union with Christ and needs to read the Scripture itself alone for a while and set theology aside until they at least get a grasp on what the new nature in Christ is (having more to do with His attributes) or seeking a new heart as you say. And then from there move on to Romans to learn of what it means to renew the mind rather than forcing dogmatic systems into their data bank.

    I guess I think of it more like, studying theology (good theology) has its place and can be profitable just so long as it is not embraced in such a way as if it’s infallible and by all means not to be displayed to unbelievers as if it itself is Christianity entirely taking the place of fellowship and communion (not the tangible sacrament as the Lutheran might put it) with Christ in day to day interactions and battles.

    I never thought about feelings and emotions as being foremost, I always thought of it more in the sense of the importance of self-control while being in submission to the Holy Spirit. Good point to remember concerning feelings and who we are in Christ.

    Luk 12:11 And when they bring you unto the synagogues, and unto magistrates, and powers, take ye no thought how or what thing ye shall answer, or what ye shall say:
    Luk 12:12 For the Holy Ghost shall teach you in the same hour what ye ought to say.

    • Lynda says:

      The wisdom of God is higher than the wisdom of men. This is to be found in the pillars of the holy faith: the sacred text and tradition. Intellectualisation of the faith might be necessary in intellectual circles, but it is the life and wisdom of the faith in Christ (it’s truth content – doctrines) that leads us on, that establishes the order and conducts the sacramental life of the Church, that builds the Christian nation and creates its cultures, that proclaims the Evangel to all nations and provides holy martyrs to plead for them.

      The Church does not leave us in the dark about how to abide in the Vine, how to live in Him.

      We are a new creation and a new race. We are being incorporated into the God man race which has Christ as its head – the last man and the second Adam, a race which has Holy Mary as the new Eve, occupying the place which the Queen Mother occupied in relation to the Davidic throne – a type and foreshadowing of the Heavenly Jerusalem.

      It is the kingdoms of this aion, the nations which have uncrowned Him, the nations which have rejected Him, the Deicide nation that hates Him that are the creatures of the day. The age soon to be consummated in Sardis is perishing in its sins. But we will take the identity of our own nation and people with us into eternity. And in the return the King we will also return.

  7. R.G. Miller says:

    I really enjoyed this read, and I can definitely identify with many of the things you put forth in this piece. I still consider myself a high predestinarian and part of the broader Reformed and Protestant tradition, but no longer hold to a highly specific, overly systematized theological dogma such as the WCF. I guess you could say I am Calvinist in non-calvinistic circles, and not Calvinist in calvinistic circles.

    I have recently begun to worship in the Anglican Communion and find much comfort and spiritual food in the service. The sermons are 10 minutes and fairly simple (though sometimes profound) as opposed to the hour long sermons in the Reformed and Presbyterian churches I grew up in. However, the service itself has a profound, and some would say emotional (not charismatic mind you) worshipfulness in it. We kneel before God, confess our sins, partake in the Eucharist, greet each other in the peace of Christ, hear the reading of the word and liturgy etc. It is quite renewing to me and my family.

    I also agree with your assertion that the viscera feeling and instincts of the regenerate heart are far too downplayed, while the objective intellectual dogma is too far elevated. I judge a man on his visceral response and instinct towards good and evil far more than I do on his theological dogma.

    • Fr. John+ says:

      Why stop there? The Anglicans (for the most part) are an Alphabet soup of competing, squabbling ‘jurisdictions’ whose only claim to legitimacy is their ‘tradition’ of the BCP, that morphs in every parish you go to! Better to take the Liturgical Riches of Cranmer and the sonorities of the 1928 BCP, and join to one of the Western Rite Orthodox Jurisdictions, who implicitly believe in the ethnic uniqueness of their communicants.


Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s