Archive for July, 2010

Now that I’ve spent some time exploring the Kinist community a bit more, I think it would be helpful to delineate what I see as major divisions among adherents.  These divisions are good things in my view:

1. The divisions are real and significant, yet Kinists for the most part maintain cordial relations with one another despite disagreements.  It is the anti-Kinist element that seeks to impose a uniform, legalistic and extra-Biblical test of faith.

2. The divisions also demonstrate that Kinism is not an “ism” in the normal sense.  Usually “isms” in the church and society at large are the result of the ideology of one charismatic leader, and monolithic beliefs lead to many cult-like qualities.  To the contrary, the cult-like, intolerant behavior is among the anti-Kinists.  This is because, though they do not realize it, the anti-Kinists are pushing their own “ism”, Cultural Marxism.  Just as a fish is not aware of water, anti-Kinists do not realize how thoroughly they have been catechized in political correctness, to the extent that they seek to persecute their Christian brothers who disagree.  Thus Kinism can be seen as an organic rediscovery of the universal human preference for one’s own people, created by Providence, and only repressed in the last fifty years under the Orwellian regime of Cultural Marxism.  Kinism is simply the most thorough form of Christian anti-Marxism, a rejection of the reduction of all men to interchangeable parts.

What are these divisions in the Kinist community?

I see three major breaks, logically, among Kinists.  I will call these positions Weak Kinism (my personal conviction), Strong Kinism and Stronger Kinism.

The universal beliefs among Kinists are a recognition that ethnic and racial differences are real and Providential.  A preference for one’s own people and culture is healthy and natural.  The divisions are basically disagreements over the law of marriage.

Weak Kinism: a Weak Kinist believes that interracial marriage is at best very unwise.  At worst, it is sinful if it involves disobedience to the father’s authority to veto specific suitors for his daughter (a father does not have the authority, however, to forbid his daughter to marry at all, or by implication to be so restrictive in approving suitors that marriage is nigh impossible).  A Weak Kinist also believes that, whatever the moral or wisdom status of an interracial marriage, once formed it is a legitimate marriage and ought to be respected.  The difficulties associated with such marriages, and any ill effects on children of the union, are simply the consequences of a sinful and/or foolish decision.  Weak Kinists also believe that if the government passes an anti-miscegenation law, such a law should be respected as a lawful law in that it does not proscribe something God commands.

Strong Kinism: Strong Kinists take things a bit further, insisting that interracial marriage is always a sin based on their reading of OT law (Rushdoony, at least early in life, held to this position).  The division between Weak and Strong Kinists is the most significant division.

Stronger Kinism: Some Strong Kinists are Stronger Kinists, who extend their interpretation of OT law to include the remedy of Ezra and Nehemiah to their people’s miscegenation.  Stronger Kinists believe miscegenators should “put away” foreign wives and children and that such marriages are Biblically nullified, akin to homosexual “marriage”.

The stronger variety I believe to be the most impolitic and hard to swallow, though I respect someone’s right to hold to it.  None of the positions are heretical, in that all recognize the multi-racial nature of Christ’s Church.  Many seem to be confusing Kinism with Christian Identity, or else deliberately misinterpreting Kinist beliefs to avoid engaging with them.

What unites all Kinists is our desire to be left alone to raise our children by our convictions, convictions that were nearly universal among our Christian ancestors just 100 years ago.  We want the ability to live in peace with liberty of conscience without worrying about self-righteous inquisitors seeking to ruin our friendships, sow discord in our churches or endanger our employment.  The unreasonableness of the opposing position (all Kinists are heretics who deserve to be fired from their jobs and excluded from polite society) is becoming more and more obvious.  Kinists should continue pressing their case, confident that truth will once again prevail against the Gospel of Marx.

Read Full Post »

Surely many of my readers are watching the world’s longest Facebook thread, where my work has been cited.  My comments:

I have heard that the second largest contingent of Presbyterians worldwide are in Korea.  Now while I readily admit that I know little of Korean Christian culture, I can make several negative generalizations that all readers will acknowledge are probably true.

1. Korean Christians don’t advocate for mass third world immigration to Korea because their churches are insufficiently diverse.

2. Korean Christians don’t encourage their children- a la John Piper- to marry people of other nations or races.

3. Korean Christians aren’t particularly keen on adopting non-Korean infants.

4. Korean Christians don’t have debates where they call each other heretics because one side believes that the Korean people, culture and nation are worth preserving.

These are just guesses of course, but it seems that racial autism is a particular genetic deformity of white men.  Just as Marx described capitalists as being willing to “sell you the rope with which to hang him,” similarly many whites seem oblivious to the realities of racial competition and identity in the world.

This post is written to those who still feel the call of the blood, concerning a meta-strategy for saving as many of our kinsmen as possible from the cultural Marxist mindset on race.

Our task is to provide a reasonable, defensible theological ground for the healthy white men, most of whom are subject to being browbeaten into accepting racial mixing by the crazy, deracinated adherents of cultural Marxism.  You will never convince these, as they, like autistics who don’t understand normal human emotion, don’t feel any loyalty to blood, a loyalty that is instinctual and universal among all humans outside of the white race.  Our deracinated society also unfortunately tends to promote these individuals to positions of prominence.

Many whites have had this genetic defect for a long time.  It is a harmful mutation of our healthy individualism.  This is why, though it pains me to see, I should, to some extent, be glad that interracial marriage is permitted and interracial adoptions are rampant.  Since you can’t tell who’s a racial nut visually, these tendencies express themselves in the actions of the person.  Most critically, it communicates vital information about the individuals involved vis-a-vis marriage for my children.  To sustain my family’s genetic capital, I want my children to marry intelligent white Christians who are also racially conscious, not racially autistic.  Children who come from families with high levels of racial nuttiness (interracial marriages and adoptions) probably are carriers of the white racial nuttiness genotype.  The nice thing is that racial nuttiness, from what I’ve seen, seems to correlate with other forms of nuttiness.  I won’t cite any specifics, as what I call nuttiness may be your pet belief, but suffice to say most will know what I mean by this statement: that particular breed of white Christian who does all sorts of peculiar things to sustain his pet abstractions, theological and otherwise.

One other interesting thing I’ve noticed is that Christian HBD adherents tend to be technical guys: engineers, computers, etc.  This is true among secular HBD types as well.  Racial reality is just another set of data points about the world, and the independence of mind of technical types lets them follow the facts wherever they lead.

To the contrary, the days when the best and brightest pursued theology are long past us; a pastor simply no longer enjoys the social status of a doctor or other high-level professional.  Thus, the kids who do poorly on the math SAT but can “pass” as intelligent verbally are more likely to go into the ministry.  This is where it gets tricky, because some of them rather enthusiastically start pounding their Bibles when confronted with uncomfortable facts, you know, like how Denmark is much less Christian than Uganda but it’s a better place to live.  Or how Iceland is a functional, mostly non-Christian country with no resources and Haiti is a nominally Christian basketcase blessed with some of the best land and resources in the world.

The contemporary Christian theologian rails about the depravity of man, and our utter inability to make sense of the world absent the Bible.  Yet engineers know this is a lie.  Some of the most brilliant engineers in the world are non-Christians, and their success is predominantly through their superior ability to make sense of natural revelation.  As Hugh Ross points out in the recent book The Genesis Debate, it never occurs to the theologians that the depravity of man would at least as equally compromise theologians’ ability to interpret the Bible as it does scientists’ interpretation of natural revelation.  Scientists and engineers, at least, are subject to rigorous feedback loops that enforce respect for the truth.  If I type the wrong command into my computer, it screws up.  I learn the correct command, and it functions.  Mathematicians don’t debate how to take an average.  Chemical engineers don’t debate the most efficient way to refine gasoline.  The best practices in each of these areas are self-evident due to the objective nature of technical work.

In theology, brilliant men can disagree over all kinds of major issues, and these conflicts can never be resolved this side of heaven.  My experience as an engineer and a businessman is very different.  If I misinterpret data, my capital will be subject to a ruthless culling in the marketplace that would make Darwin blush.  Data isn’t, as in most theologies, simply some sideshow to my Big Abstract Theory of Unified Business: data is my business, it sustains my business and any abstractions sustained against the data must be culled.  A theologian can go on making errors for years, and no one knows any difference, until Christ’s return.

Yet, instead of showing humility, any data that is presented to a theologian in contrast to his interpretation is immediately rejected.  The formula is simple:

Bible = Truth

Bible = How I Interpret the Bible

Me = Truth

You = Depraved Man Who Is Deceived by your so-called data

When you propose an alternative Biblical interpretation that preserves the harmony of both specific and natural revelation, especially the kind of natural revelation held in disfavor by our state religion Equality, they call you a heretic.

The problem for these guys is that logic and reason are essentially mathematical operations.  These guys have been butchering logic ever since they got their gentleman’s C in college algebra.

So my advice to the defenders of Christian racial consciousness is to keep fighting the good fight, but do so publicly where there’s an audience.  Some who can be reached will be convinced.  All we need to rebuild our civilization is a critical mass of Bible-believing, racially-conscious Christians.  Bury them in data, explanations and exegesis.  Treat them with the Christian respect they do not accord you in return, and those watching can decide for themselves who is reasonable and who is unreasoning.

Read Full Post »


It turns out I had comments turned off by default in my WordPress settings.  My apologies to readers, comments are certainly welcome and encouraged.  The setting has now been fixed for future posts.

Read Full Post »

A conservative writer, whose name escapes me, once wrote that liberalism is basically a religion, except there’s no Jesus and no God, but there is a devil: Hitler.  Thus, anything that Hitler might have remotely supported or is thought to have supported becomes, by association, itself evil.  Liberals aren’t exactly consistent on this score (as Hitler was a socialist and an antismoking zealot), but suffice to say that liberals never let consistency become a stumbling block in the way of power: especially power for virtuous liberals who are better qualified to judge right and wrong because of their unequaled hatred of Hitler and everything Hitler stood for that liberals don’t like.

Since liberalism remains the reigning paradigm, many young earth creationists have attempted to triangulate this feature of the ideological terrain by using variations of the argument that Darwin=racism=Hitler.  I’ll refer to these particular young earthers as liberal young earthers (for liberalism is the logical extension of the absolute human equality their position demands).  The most notable organization, Answers in Genesis, goes even further, parading around charts of mixed race couples (the only heterosexual union favored by the mainstream culture) and explaining how opposition to interracial marriage is driven by Darwinian racism.  So eager to please the mainstream (that nevertheless still regards them as toothless, ignorant hillbilly Bible-thumpers), they omit the simple fact that the people who have historically  most opposed interracial marriage, white Southerners, have also been the group least likely to believe in evolution and most likely to believe in a young earth.

The great Southern Presbyterian Robert L. Dabney, a strident opponent of interracial marriage, was among the first to offer critiques of the evolutionary and geological arguments for an old Earth (see Dabney’s Systematic Theology).

Nevertheless, many sincere Christians may be moved by the Darwin=Hitler=racism device.  This would be unfortunate, as I view an understanding of the realities of human biodiversity (the view that different groups of people differ in average ability) as the pre-eminent suppressed political truth of our time.  If we ever hope to reestablish some sort of Christian liberty, then we must recognize all of the limitations of fallen man, including variance between groups.  To characterize one of these limitations as forbidden simply because Darwinism provides a convenient explanation is illogical.  Here’s why I believe human biodiversity to be independent of considerations of atheistic evolution:

1. Let’s attack the Hitler argument head-on.  Yes, Hitler was an evolutionist, and a believer in human biodiversity (though an inaccurate one, badly mistaken, to his ruin, about the relative abilities of Germans and Slavs; the triumphs of the Cosmonauts, despite being hobbled by an inefficient Communist system, also disprove Hitler’s anti-Slavic prejudices).  What separates Hitler and Stalin was their willingness, along with homicidal personalities, to take their atheism to its logical conclusion.  If there is no God, then we can do what we want, and what Hitler and Stalin wanted to do was kill people.  We’re lucky that most atheists are restrained from such acts by personality and temperament.  The critical factors of Hitler and Stalin’s crimes are independent of any belief in human biodiversity (a belief shared by a majority of the Americans and British who fought them).

If, as the liberal young earthers argue, a belief in human biodiversity is the critical, unique factor in prompting Hitler’s abuses, how can they explain Stalin, whose crimes exceeded those attributed to Hitler by an order of magnitude?  For Stalin and the USSR were stridently anti-evolutionist and anti-human-biodiversity.  Marxism is an ideology that simplifies every relationship to economics, and one of its enabling assumptions is that all men are absolutely equal.  If they were not, then that might imply that inequality, such as develops in a free enterprise system, is natural and benign rather than exploitive, the linchpin of Marxist belief.

The Soviets were so wedded to the primacy of equality that they adopted agricultural practices based on a pseudoscience called Lamarckism; Lamarck was a scientist who opposed Darwin by explaining all purported evolutionary effects as being conditioned by the organism’s environment.  Thus they reasoned that certain strains of wheat most appropriate for warmer regions could indeed be grown in colder regions if it were simply exposed to the proper environment, notions they took seriously to the ruin of Soviet agriculture.  Today, we laugh at this, as even liberal young earthers admit that selective breeding of say, corn, can result in microevolutionary changes that improve the species.  The Soviets, however, took their anti-genetics stance very seriously, as they clearly saw the implications for Marxism if biodiversity played a significant role.

Therefore, since the Soviets murdered 20 million people, we could conclude, if we follow the liberal young earther methodology of argument-by-body-count, that anti-human-biodiversity Lamarckian materialism is many times worse than Darwinian materialism.  We could even conceive of an evil scenario where neo-Soviets convince a group of people, in their own country, that they are “racist oppressors”, and subject them to dispossession, rape and murder by foreigners in the land their ancestors built.  Oh wait…nevermind, that would never happen.  Much better to fret about Nazism, because we all know that human-diversity-believing neo-Nazis, not powerful Marxists ensconced in every significant institution in our society, are the greatest threat to our lives and liberties…

Let us also consider the Nazi regime’s crimes against the mentally ill.  To save the socialist state money, thousands of institutionalized people were euthanized because of mental illness.  We can condemn the Nazis for this act without denying the existence of mental illness.  What made it wrong was the murder, not the motive.  Liberals and liberal young earthers commit the fallacy of denying human biodiversity because Hitler used his warped version of it as one of his reasons to commit murder.  This is absurd.  Some rapists pick their victims based on immodest dress, reasoning that “she was asking for it.”  Does this mean that teaching young women that they have a responsibility to dress modestly somehow justifies rape?  Such is the analogous charge of liberals and the liberal young earthers.

2. I can test the reality of gravity.  If I let go of my pencil, it will hit the ground.  I can be completely ignorant and agnostic about the mechanism of gravity and yet still recognize the fact that, absent a compensating force, what goes up always comes down.  Similarly, the primary and most relevant claims of human biodiversity are independent of questions of origin.  For example, analysis of SAT scores reveal three critical things:

A. The SAT successfully predicts success (i.e. GPA) in college, better than any other single factor.

B. The hierarchy of SAT scores is Asians at the top, followed closely by whites, then at some distance Hispanics and at a further distance blacks at the bottom.

C. The SAT more-or-less predicts the success of each racial group in college.  If anything, due to cultural differences (propensity to study, respect for education) it slightly underpredicts white and Asian performance and overpredicts black and Hispanic performance.

These three facts contradict the two main arguments against racial differences in academic performance.  Liberals claim a) that the SAT is a meaningless test that cannot possibly predict performance better than a committee of liberals on an admissions committee, or b) the SAT is biased against blacks and Hispanics (curiously enough, this argument is never deployed to deconstruct the slight lead of Asians over whites; Asians are better because they’re superior to white people, but whites only appear better than blacks and Hispanics due to institutional white racism).  As shown above, both of these arguments are fallacious, as the SAT does predict college performance better than any other measure (most likely because it is objective, fair and avoids exactly the kind of subjective discrimination liberals claim to oppose) AND if anything, the SAT is biased against whites and Asians, who often overachieve in college relative to their intelligence.  If the SAT is biased towards blacks, then life itself would seem to be biased towards blacks (in fact, such is now pretty much the orthodox liberal view, chalking up all minority underachievement to unfalsifiable claims of institutional racism).

Human biodiversity is simply a belief that the evidence implies that these differences are mostly genetic, or biological, in origin.  While not proven by the SAT alone, when combined with other objective research (such as adoptive and demographic studies showing that, on average, the wealthiest black children have lower IQ’s than the poorest white children), it is clear that the HBD position is a reasonable one.  If anything, the fact that the entire liberal institutional apparatus of our society, the very people threatened with having to seek gainful employment if HBD is true, cannot produce environmental research refuting a mostly biological explanation is compelling.  The data are true independent of anyone’s opinions of evolution.  It would not contradict the data nor an honest young earth position to simply acknowledge that these differences are supernaturally created.  To deny the data because some people explain the data by appeal to evolution is illogical.  If I mistakenly believe gravity is driven by the invisible efforts of fairies, this has no bearing on the data showing that gravity is real, even if fairies are not.

This is the fundamental what of human biodiversity, and a vitally important truth.  This truth leads inevitably to the conclusion that the differences between racial groups in economic terms are intractable (one of the components to IQ is time preference and the ability to delay gratification, both keys to building wealth; in fact, IQ predicts income almost as robustly as academic performance).  Combine this unequal distribution with a one-man-one-vote democracy with unlimited taxing capacity and you have the death of liberty.  Why?  Depraved men will not accept a lassiez-faire system that shows their group is simply less able to produce economic value due to biological differences.  Fallen men will grasp onto anything but such a conclusion, instead fanning their envy by claiming that they are less successful because they are oppressed.  Liberalism has already supplied such a narrative, and most minority individuals believe it.  Once they become a voting majority, liberty is dead.

If this is true, then the only hope of liberty is either racial separation or a non-democratic government.  The latter is unlikely (about 30-40% of whites are certifiably politically crazy, and will resist, along with minorities, any transition to a non-democratic form of government), unsustainable (the demographics of minority population growth lead to a South African scenario, where there are simply too many of them for a non-democratic government to enforce the rule of law and rights of property from general mayhem) and undesirable (the South African government had to engage in increasingly distasteful, immoral acts to sustain itself against the demographic time bomb; it should be noted, however, that the ANC terrorists fought by the South African government were themselves no innocents).

I should pause here to consider whether there is a contradiction on the one hand between my a) sympathies for the Confederacy, a mixed-race non-democratic society (much more “diverse” demographically than the South is today) and b) my conclusion that racial separation is the most humane solution to resolving ethnic conflict.  The simple answer is the game has changed in a big way with the advent of contraception.  Simply, because it involves foresight and planning (and time preference is of the essence of intelligence), contraception ensures that the less intelligent, poorest people will have higher birthrates than the most intelligent, wealthiest people.  It used to not be this way, quite the opposite in fact; in England, the aristocracy left proportionally more descendants historically than the lower classes.  The new factor of contraception guarantees that a modern Confederacy would within a few generations degenerate into an utterly disordered state like South Africa.

Thus, racial separation remains as the least worst solution to the rabid inter-group envy that will persist in a mixed society.  It seems that familiarity breeds contempt, as men will gladly welcome trade with more successful groups abroad, but will not tolerate more successful ethnic groups occupying their same territory.  South African blacks, for example, aren’t particularly enraged that the Chinese in China are doing well for themselves lately.

At core, I think these are the logical and necessary conclusions of a) a generally conservative orientation that accepts the depravity of man, which is typical of the liberal young earthers, and b) the measurable reality of human biodiversity.  Because the liberal young earthers don’t like the conclusions, they attack b) as morally unacceptable, avoiding a need to engage with the data.

Another issue with the liberal young earthers is that they have a somewhat other-worldly orientation.  With the notable exception of Rushdoony (who was not a liberal, opposed interracial marriage and taught a world-conquering sort of faith) and his theological heirs, most young earthers buy into the fundamentalist disengagement with the world of politics, where the questions of HBD, blood and soil work themselves out.  Many of them think the world is about to end and simply don’t care what happens to their people or the land their ancestors built.  Hitting human biodiversity adherents with the Hitler stick is just one more Powerpoint slide to convince their followers that the-world-must-absolutely-be-only-6000-years-old-or-you-can’t-call-yourself-a-Christian.  The liberal young earthers are not unique in this idiosyncrasy; it is common for white people to get caught up in arguing over abstractions rather than looking out for their own self-interest.

3. All liberal young earthers claim to believe in microevolution, to an almost extreme degree, as they believe all animal life today is descended from a relatively few samples present on Noah’s ark during a worldwide flood.  While wielding the Hitler stick, does it never occur to them that the ideas of human biodiversity are themselves questions of microevolution?  No HBD adherent has claimed any human differences of extreme absolute significance, comparable to the spontaneous generation of a flagellum.  HBD simply says that people differ slightly in their cranial capacities, mental efficiency and physical traits, and that genetic differences account for differing averages between groups; these differences are naturally derived and are considerably less absolutely genetically significant than the differences between breeds of dogs.

These differences appear significant from our perspective, because (surprise, surprise) our people enjoy certain adaptations that make them particularly suited to creating Western-style advanced societies, just as we should not be surprised when a bassett hound is outpaced by a greyhound.  When other groups show themselves less able to sustain our type of civilization, this matters a great deal politically, for it has big implications for major liberal policies like mass immigration and what exactly constitutes a nation.  But biologically these differences are not all that significant, and really present no problem for an enlightened young earth view that acknowledges the self-evident reality of microevolution in humans and sheds the need to please the liberal mainstream by showing themselves to be doctrinaire equalitarians.

4. Lastly, due to overwhelming evidence, a great many honest liberals have retreated to a culturalist position, the last ditch of HBD-denial.  This view acknowledges real, seemingly intractable racial differences but chalks them up to cultural differences (which is undoubtedly true to some extent).  They sidestep the genetic question by portraying culture as an accident of history independent of any biological drivers.  This view was recently put forward in the bestseller No Excuses.

Steve Sailer has mocked this view by noting how it conveniently creates lots of employment opportunities for “nice white ladies” with liberal arts degrees to engage in taxpayer-funded uplift projects in the ghetto.  Liberalism has essentially admitted that closing the “achievement gap” means separating black children from their parents as much as possible.  Of course, the results from Head Start and other similar efforts have proven to be illusory and temporary, disappearing entirely by age 17 on IQ and achievement tests.

I believe many honest conservatives also embrace this view.  It allows one to acknowledge racial reality without coming to any uncomfortable conclusions about biology.  But really, how is this view any kind of solution?

Would not changing people’s culture involve every bit the tyranny of changing their genetics?  Would it not, as exemplified by the prototypical efforts of Head Start, involve placing liberals in charge of the raising of children?  Do we even have the right to deprive minority parents of the dignity of raising their own children in their own culture, however dysfunctional?  The level of paternalism involved would make a Confederate slaveowner blush.  The level of tyranny is Orwellian.

Thus, we see that practically, there is little difference whether we regard ethnic differences as biological or cultural, as both are intractable.  The same solution, that of national separation, is implied by both.  It could be argued that national separation is the ordinary means God provides to minimize conflict between groups of men.  I can understand why the secular globalists would resist such a solution, but not orthodox Christians.  Let us shed the remaining vestiges of the globalist worldview and accept the judgment of history and Providence.  Men are separated by God into nations for a divine purpose and we ignore these distinctions at our peril.

Read Full Post »