Kinism: Friend or Foe?

Kinism would seem to be a friend to a Christian human biodiversity realist, in that it’s comforting to know there are some Christians out there who have not reinterpreted the Church to be some sort of non-secular United Nations.  However, the group can be a bit rough around the edges.  A few friendly critiques (though these will apply to only some Kinists, not all):

1. Stop using words like “Aryan” or “Negro” or even worse “nigger”.  Every group has the right to name itself (for example I call “Christian Scientists” by their preferred name even though they’re neither Christian nor scientific, but quite the contrary!), and though the African-American name du jour does change every few decades (likely for the same reason the euphemisms we use for mentally challenged people change: the technical, respectable term becomes too strongly associated with negative connotations), there’s no need to alienate potential readers with status-destroying verbiage.  I share many of your views, but many of your readers are strangers in a public forum; I would not think highly of any young man who came to court my daughter and lacked the self-control, barely knowing me as a stranger, to not spout off several n-bombs in the conversation.  Status does matter for those of us living in the real world, and if it makes no difference to your essential argument, why advertise low status?  Yggdrasil says it best:

One unintended tactical benefit of the dumbing-down of our educational system and culture is that few in the middle class associate low status with abstract concepts. Rather, they associate low status only with specific words and slogans.

It takes billions of dollars of investment and years of propaganda before the mass-media can associate a new set of words and phrases with low status European-Americans. It is relatively easy for you to maneuver within this slow strategic cycle created by our mass media and the dumbed-down culture it has produced.

Use it to your advantage! Avoid those stereotyped phrases and words, and the status threat to the middle class audience is removed. They will listen intently to your concepts as long as they are unaccompanied by ignorant sounding slogans.

The establishment will be left with its feeble efforts to silence you. They dare not debate the merits. They dare not argue openly that multi-racial empires are conducive to peace. They dare not begin a debate over the proposition, inherent in all integrationist mythology, that blacks and browns lose that predisposition toward racial hatred and aggression that they exhibit everywhere else in the world once on North American or European soil.

They cannot afford to address publicly that ultimate question of how much European-Americans must give up to buy racial peace.

So exploit their weaknesses! Explain reality but avoid the words and phrases that provoke status fears.

Stop talking about “loving your own race” when accused of hating other races. Talk instead about the inevitability of conflict within multi-racial empires irrespective of the races involved, and talk about the obvious economic motives for their creation – the manipulation of the most numerous and productive.

Stop talking about the achievements of the white race, and focus on the demands of blacks and browns.

Stop talking about genetic differences and focus instead on pracitcal ways of preventing conflict and reducing costs.

And for goodness sake, stop using the “n” word.

2. Kinism has a very good first principle: we have concentric circles of obligation to our family, and our race/nation is analogous to family in relation to humanity at large.  However, one of its smaller principles is likely to ensure its continued marginalization: their theological belief that interracial marriages are illegitimate and adulterous.  Their argument is based on a theonomic interpretation of Nehemiah, where the prophet commands the Jews to part with their foreign wives and children.  Modern theologians like to say this was on a spiritual, not a racial, basis.  However, Kinists rightly respond that Paul expressly commands Christians to not divorce non-Christians, and most Kinists would also agree that if a white Christian willfully and sinfully marries a white non-Christian, then there is no cause for divorce or nullification of the marriage.  How, then, the Kinist responds, is it that God lawfully commands the Israelites to divorce their foreign wives and abandon their children?

Logically, goes the Kinist argument, there is a special category of nullification for interracial marriages, i.e. it’s as if they had never taken place.

The principle of unequal yoking was expanded with some Old Testament Law support by Rushdoony to include interracial and intercultural marriages.  However, Rushdoony never goes so far as to command men in interracial marriages to divorce and abandon their wives and children.  This Kinist argument is weak in that it proves too much.  The Bible has been around a long time, and absent more proof that mainstream theologians (Calvin, Henry, Dabney, etc) accept the Kinist argument here, I simply cannot accept it and must call it a reactionary innovation.

The idea of men abandoning their families simply shocks the conscience, and if this were indeed a general principle to be derived from Nehemiah I would simply expect more attention paid to it in other parts of Scripture, specifically in the New Testament.  I believe that interracial marriage is unwise, maybe even sinful (and certainly so when it involves disobeying parents).  But to say that interracial marriages should be nullified and children abandoned, I can’t buy that.

This particular doctrine will also be flown as a bloody shirt by liberals looking to smear all HBD realist Christians.  Major Kinist sites for the curious (again, these critiques do not necessarily apply to all Kinists):

kinism.net

spiritwaterblood.com

firstword.us