By Davis Carlton

Steve Hays of Triablogue has posted a brief discussion on the concept of “race-traitors.” I find many of Hays’ writings on theological topics to be of interest, although I disagree with his rejection of Kinism. I thought I would offer my own thoughts in response to what he says in his brief post. Hays begins by noting, “The ‘race-traitor’ epithet is used both by (some) whites and blacks. Is that ever a legitimate category?”

To answer Hays’ rhetorical question: yes, race treason is a legitimate category. That the Bible condemns treason should be uncontroversial. Judas Iscariot is also identified as the traitor (Lk. 6:16), the Apostle Paul condemns traitors (2 Tim. 3:4), and Stephen accuses those who were about to stone him of being “betrayers and murderers” (Acts 7:52). Race is the broadest subcategory of mankind encompassing many people from similar ethnic backgrounds. The Bible uses many different designations that radiate outward from the basic social unit of the family. Several families comprise a clan, several clans comprise a tribe, and several tribes comprise a nation. Nations are hereditary and genealogical (1 Chr. 1-8, 9:1), and are typically named for a prominent patriarch.

It’s likely that the concept of race is approximated by the Biblical concept of a people. The Hebrew people are the Semitic nations descended from the Eber, the ancestor of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, who are the patriarchs of the nation of Israel. We can also see that closely related nations like Israel and Edom were considered brothers in a way that seems particular to their close hereditary relationship that is not common to all of mankind (Num. 20:14; Deut. 23:7). Race is hereditary in nature, but is often identified by physical characteristics that are common to people belonging to the racial grouping. An example of this is how the prophet Jeremiah identifies the Ethiopians as having skin color distinct from his fellow Israelites (Jer. 13:23). The Ethiopians were distinct in a way that fellow Hebrews were not.

From this we can easily deduce that race is a coherent Biblical category, but does racial identity command any sort of loyalty that can be betrayed? The Biblical data is clear that we have a responsibility to help others. The Kinist position is that our responsibilities radiate outward from ourselves to include increasingly larger groups of people beginning with our immediate families and ultimately encompassing all of mankind as a whole. Responsibility to others ordinarily increases the closer they are to us. The reason for the caveat “ordinarily” is that Kinists would acknowledge that there are circumstances in which we would be expected to help people in a way that isn’t proportionate to our hereditary relationship. We should help someone in serious danger regardless of how closely they are related to us or whether they are members of our particular race. The point being that there are limits to our personal responsibilities to others, and that these limits tend to favor our close kin in comparison to mankind in general (Rom. 9:3; 1 Tim. 5:8).

We are told that God divided the nations their inheritance (Deut. 32:8; Acts 17:26). Loyalty to our nation would necessarily entail that we should seek to defend and preserve our nation’s inheritance both in terms of natural resources such as land and cultural tradition such as language, literature, music, and folkways. A prominent counter example is Esau who was criticized for his flippant disregard of his inheritance and his casual willingness to sellout to his brother Jacob (Gen. 25:34; Heb. 12:16). True loyalty to one’s nation must entail safeguarding the inheritance we have received and doing what we can to pass on this trust as a legacy to our future descendants. Biological race may be a bit broad for the concept of loyalty, but since the entire Western world is largely suffering from the same malady I think we can legitimately consider race loyalty as an extension of loyalty to our nations and tribes. With this in mind, let’s consider what Steve Hays writes about the concept of race treason.

Hays immediately dismisses the suggestion that miscegenation or race mixing would constitute race treason, calling this “an illegitimate use of the designation.” There’s no need for an extensive reply since Kinists have fleshed out our thoughts on this subject elsewhere in great detail, and because Hays doesn’t say anything to actually rebut the idea that race mixing – at least generally speaking – is not congruent with loyalty to our own race or ethnic group. Surely the patriarchs of Genesis didn’t seem to think this when it came to potential spouses for Isaac and Jacob. The fact that Laban’s family (the father of Leah and Rachel) was mired in pagan superstition only reinforces the fact that the concerns of Abraham, Isaac, and Rebekah was for their children to marry among their people.

Hays does consider the concept of race treason to be legitimate, but his first example makes virtually no sense. “For instance, there are black politicians who support policies detrimental to the black community. Because, historically, the Democrat party is majority white, you have black Democrats who kowtow to liberal white policies in order to be players in the Democrat party.” The vast majority of blacks support left-wing policies and are the most reliable contingent of Democratic voters. Black support for the Democratic Party is not due to a desire to “kowtow to liberal white policies,” but rather a desire to further black interests at the expense of whites. Blacks actually believe in the policies that they vote for, and their elected representatives are expected to deliver. Hays’ example feeds into the myth that abortion is a racist white liberal plot to decimate non-white populations, when in reality the strongest supporters of abortion are blacks and other non-whites. The problem with black voting patterns isn’t race treason, but the false beliefs that they collectively hold about how their welfare and interests are best served. The other examples given by Hays, of stooges in the government of Hong Kong selling out to mainland China and white liberals promoting policies harmful to whites, are much more apropos.

Hays continues, “in my anecdotal experience, it’s my impression that white racists have a white first ethic. You put your own race first. You should have greater solidarity with members of your own (white) race than other races or ethnicities.” Here I believe that Hays has fallen prey to the all too common tendency to limit the discussion of “racists” to white people. Whites have the least racial consciousness or loyalty of any racial group in our present age. It wasn’t always this way, but that’s how it is now. Is Hays really so limited in his anecdotal experiences? Why limit this discussion to what white “racists” think? Hays rejects this “racist” notion of race treason as absurd stating, “By that logic, I have greater solidarity with Elizabeth Warren than Russell Wilson, Mayor Pete Buttboy than Sen. Tim Scott, “Caitlyn” Jenner than Bobby Jindal, Rosie O’Donnell than Francis Chan, Boy George than Izzy Folau, Elton John than Michael Nazir Ali, Richard Dawkins than Voddie Baucham–to name a few.”

Hays believes that even a modified version of race loyalty is untenable. This is because “Race is always one factor among many, and some factors are much more important to individual and social identity than biological race, such as religion, common interests, biological sex, and sexual orientation.” Ok. Religion is certainly important, but “common interests” is fairly vague, and biological sex and sexual orientation don’t trump race. Every natural family is comprised of at least a mother and father, so healthy loyalty would typically encompass both men and women who are close to us. Only recently has biological sex become a focal point of loyalty as in the case of God-hating feminists or hedonistic pick up artist men. Sexual orientation is an even worse example, because this is a modern concept aimed at tearing down “heteronormativity.” People are normally sexually attracted to those of the opposite sex. Those who aren’t need help and prayer, not to have their inordinate affections affirmed as a legitimate source of their identity.

Finally Hays complains that the concept of race is too fluid. “Many individuals can’t be classified as members of one biological race. Biological race is a spectrum, easier to sort out at the ends of the spectrum than in the blended middle. That’s why racial purists abhor ‘miscegenation.’ They understand that racial categories are often rather arbitrary and unstable.” I deal with this claim more extensively in my response to Ken Ham’s assertions about race and evolution. Hays’ mistake is that he grossly underestimates how well the vast majority of people can be reliably classified based upon race. Almost everyone fits into a particular racial group. Even individuals who would qualify as mixed typically exhibit the traits that are more genetically dominant. Opposition to miscegenation is motivated by many factors, but the belief that the practice might actually invalidate race isn’t one of them. The belief in race is not arbitrary or unstable. There are instances in which blurring occurs along the fringes of racial distinctions, but this doesn’t invalidate the distinction as a whole. To believe it does is to commit Loki’s Wager fallacy.

Overall the issue of race and race-based loyalty are only going to become more important as our modern immigration policies continue apace. In a traditional and organic society, race can actually be a muted concern, since society is homogeneous and racial differences aren’t able to be a source of friction that they are in highly integrated societies such as ours. In modern Western society the various racial groups must compete for power and resources. White Christians have simply been too busy condemning whites for imaginary sins like “racism” to notice.

Most people limit the concept of treason to disloyalty or treachery against the state. This fails to appreciate the proper objects of our loyalty. We are bound to obey and respect civil government insofar as it is subordinated to God’s Law and by extension supportive of the interests of its people. A state that constantly spurns God’s commandments and sells out the interests of its people to the international plutocratic elite has committed treason by any reasonable definition. Today the worst kind of treason is committed by those whites who sell out the interests of their kinsmen in order to ingratiate themselves to those hostile to their people’s interests in order to preserve what is left of their political power in the ever-shrinking short term. It’s a losing strategy in the long run. Just ask Joseph Crowley.