Hi, I’m Christian Gray with another Kinism FAQ. Previously in this series, we looked at whether Kinism is Racist and whether it is Scriptural. Today we’ll look at the historical case for Kinism.
We recall that Kinism is a preferential love and commitment shown to one’s family and extended family. Because we Kinists desire the preservation and future of our people, we forbid behavior that is destructive to those goals, namely interracial marriage and interracial adoption.
Neither does novelty, we reply. And that’s really our point, namely to make the new kids on the block show why so many, for so long, were so wrong. Of course, folks can be misled for many years. When Protestants, for example, made the case why centuries of Catholics were wrong, one of their key arguments was that Catholics had deviated from their doctrinal roots. (By the way, despite their crucial theological differences, Catholics and Protestants practiced Kinism.) But where is the argument that we Kinists are departing from the glory years when multiculturalism held the day? Of course, we wouldn’t exist to argue our position were multiculturalists anything but entirely novel. There can simply be no historical support for anti-Kinism when the societies of recorded history commonly practiced the opposite.
I confess that I was initially against using this type of argument because it’s true that historical consensus doesn’t necessitate moral validity. But when something which is practiced naturally and peacefully for ages is followed by a newfangled objection that slanders the practice, demonizes the practice, censors the remaining guardians of the practice, and uses legislation, media, entertainment, and public education to discourage and replace the practice, we must challenge the malignant objection rather than the benign practice. This principle especially applies when the alternative to the traditional practice necessarily reaps such dire and irreversible results as racial genocide. Yet, because most Christians can’t find a decisive Bible verse to challenge them, they spurn and betray the historical legacy of their ancestors and capitulate to a deviant social phenomenon. Would they need such a conclusive bible verse to oppose the pro-sodomy agenda forced upon them with these same dirty tactics? Isn’t the strong heterosexual history of humanity and the unnatural, ethnocidal nature of sodomy a sufficient reason to stay the course?
Apparently not. Short-sighted Christians will swiftly reject this historical argument and pathetically join their anti-Christian counterparts in using liberal-Marxist language to denounce their own brothers. They call us Kinists names like racists and haters, or sometimes just denounce us as backwards and ignorant. But we’ve quickly learned that when egalitarians slings slurs and command us to get with the future and to quit living in the past, that’s a clue that they have no rational rebuttal. They’re merely showing their blind preference for progressive and politically-correct ideals – failed ideals with no proven track record because they radically diverge from the tested and workable social model of our real history. This reminds me of a moment recorded at the recent AmRen conference when Richard Spencer was talking with an Antifa moron who wants to destroy what he doesn’t believe exists. After Richard shows how white nationalists promote the peaceful existence of all peoples, the enlightened fool says: “There’s no such thing as race. You guys represent an antiquated system that has no place in the 21st century.” Richard chuckles and asks, “You guys are the future?”
It’s very odd how anti-Kinist Christians will appeal to the primacy of faith over race when defending mixed marriages (“The Bible only restricts marriage partners to believers”), yet they arrogantly dismiss the testimony of millions of Christians over millennia in favor of the views of rank atheists, humanists, and Christ-haters of recent decades. These are traitorous hypocrites.
“Kinism appears to be one of those odd systems which pop up from time to time among those with a tendency toward conspiracy theories, an over-inflated sense of entitlement, and an unhealthy victim mentality. It being about as fringey [sic] as fringe can be, any knowledge I or another OPC pastor might have on the movement would come entirely from internet research…”Wrong, pastor. Kinism can’t have just popped up when it has been the social model for millennia, and when its converse became popularized relatively recently with the adulterous plagiarist Communist Reverend Martin Luther King. Ethnocentrism and consanguineous marriages were ubiquitous long before internet research was available. I bet every theologian and church father this pastor has studied repudiated the racial amalgamation this pastor advocates.
“A central tenet of Kinism seems to be that God wants people to keep themselves within strict ethnic groupings. Were this so, one would expect the Lord to have mentioned this some place in the Scriptures”.If “keeping to oneself” means obeying the fifth commandment and honoring the authority of our fathers by marring according to one’s tribal interests, then this OPC pastor has missed the history of the Israelites and the history of all biblical monarchical kingdoms. Monarchies are nations based on heredity, my friend. Patriarchal nationalism is racial, amigo. See our other FAQ, Is Kinism Scriptural for other scriptural arguments. If “keeping to oneself” means avoiding all relationship with racial outsiders, this pastor has lousy internet researching skills. If a pastor can’t use Google to find the rebuttal to that criticism, how did he get through the great works assigned in seminary and become a reverend?
“I hope you, as I do, find Kinism not only personally distasteful and morally repugnant, but fundamentally at odds with the Gospel itself.”Again, that which you say about those among the resurgence of Kinism, you say about the original advocates. Forget the adjective Kinism for a minute and just remember that all of the church practiced that which we call Kinism, and none of your gospel heroes agreed with your racial suicidal views, and especially with your arrogant suggestion that gospel began 60 years ago. They would find you and the brown mulatto bastards you wish to spawn repugnant. Please, stop calling US heretics.
This leads to Westminster Question 127 about the 5th commandment: What is the honor that inferiors owe to their superiors?
Answer: The honor which inferiors owe to their superiors is, all due reverence in heart, word, and behavior; prayer and thanksgiving for them; imitation of their virtues and graces; willing obedience to their lawful commands and counsels; due submission to their corrections; fidelity to, defense and maintenance of their persons and authority, according to their several ranks, and the nature of their places; bearing with their infirmities, and covering them in love, that so they may be an honor to them and to their government.
How can it possibly be shown that a father’s commandment to marry within one’s race is sinful? No sin is commanded here just as no sin is commanded when a father forbids his daughter from marring a man twice her age, or a convict, or a man that has no job, or no legs. Yet, if the history of the church was monolithically Eurocentric and patriarchal, we can only conclude that these fathers either accidently or intentionally prescribed Kinist marriages for their daughters.
Some may acquiesce and affirm the strong Kinist history of the West, but respond that our ancestors’ practice was based on cultural inertia or extra-biblical custom rather than a Christian doctrinal belief. But saying that their practice wasn’t seeded in belief because it’s not codified in confessions is like saying that their aversion to cannibalism was accidental.
Since we’re discussing the history of Kinism, we must mention the founding of America. John Jay, signer of the Declaration of Independence and first Chief Justice of the United States: “Providence has been pleased to give this one connected country to one united people, a people descended from the same ancestors, speaking the same language, professing the same religion, attached to the same principles of government, very similar in their manners and customs.” That’s essentially Kinism, our American history, not hate. Of course, the Constitution’s preamble itself says that the founders wanted to secure the blessings of liberty to “ourselves and our posterity.” If the founders at the Constitution Convention looked like those at a modern United Nations meeting, then anti-Kinists would have an argument. But they were all honkies.
What happened, then? How did we go from a people who banned interracial marriage, looked upon it as we look upon sodomy today, and understood it as Marxist, to a people that celebrates it and detests those that don’t? In closing, let’s shift from the history of Kinism to a brief part of the history of anti-Kinism, which is the more germane question anyway. I intimated earlier that entertainment, legislation, and media are massive propaganda machines used to promote multiculturalism and to blackball white advocates. We’ll only look at the area of public education to show how hostile foreign elites molded anti-Kinists into what they are. I’ll be paraphrasing some information from chapter 1 of Jared Taylor’s book, White Identity: Racial Consciousness in the 21st Century.
Because of the aforementioned extended and unassailable history demonstrating that people stubbornly prefer company and companions that are like themselves, in the 40s and 50s academics and social theorists actually had to develop strategies to bring blacks and whites together. These strategies were known as contact theory. Quoting Taylor: “Many believed that integration for children was so important that the opposition of parents should be ignored.” A Columbia law school professor wrote that because children should be protected from the "tyranny” of their parents, they should be required to attend “schools that are not entirely controlled by parents,” where they could be exposed to “a broader range of . . . value options than their parents could hope to provide.” He said that our folks, because they were like their ancestors and the historical Christian West, were racist whites whose malignant hearts needed reformed via enlightened, integrated education.
Basically, these elites knew that white adults (our grandparents) would not integrate willingly, so they aggressively and coercively went after their kids (our parents). It started as passive desegregation where schools had to admit those with whom parents didn’t want their kids educated. Then in 1968, bureaucrats decided that schools had to be purposely integrated with mandatory, race-based student assignment. In 1971, they begin to bus in the blacks. What do you think happened? Did it “click” for white Christian parents? Did they suddenly realize they were racists who had been perverting the gospel? Did pastors call for national repentance? No, whites abandoned the public schools. Taylor noted that “in just seven years, nine high schools in Baltimore went from all-white to all-black. That’s the Yankee, enlightened north, by the way. In Montgomery, Alabama, Sidney Lanier High School, which used to educate the state’s elite, had almost no white students left ten years after the first black enrolled in 1964.” The whites that remained naturally practiced self-segregation, just as they do now. Taylor:
Students gravitated to different sports teams and clubs, ate lunch at segregated tables, and even left school by different doors. Interracial dating was rare, and there were two non-school-sponsored dances—the Cotillion and the Ebony Ball—that only highlighted the racial divide.
Children separated themselves by race even in places such as Shaker Heights and Montclair, where parents wanted them to mix. Many children, however, had no choice but to separate because their parents moved to the suburbs or put them in private schools. It was both parents and children, therefore, who defeated integration.
It didn’t work, it doesn’t work, and anti-Kinists need to stop posturing. According to a Harvard research project, “by 2004, American schools were just as segregated as they were in 1969, the year after Martin Luther King, Jr. was assassinated.” This should not surprise us. When not coerced at gun point, people self-segregate. Churches are still segregated. Funeral homes are segregated more so than churches. Retirement homes are segregated. Americans prefer doctors and car salesmen of their own race. It’s not Kinists who needed to be manufactured, but anti-Kinists. He’s a factoid for anti-Kinist gospel thumpers. Missiologist Donald Anderson McGavran noted long ago that “Men like to become Christians without crossing racial, linguistic, or class barriers.” Taylor notes that those churches that followed his advice to build congregations as homogenous units have the largest congregations. Taylor notes that Billy Graham tried to make sure that everyone who responded to his altar calls was met by someone of the same race.
If anti-Kinists don’t care about the testimonies of their own kin, perhaps they’ll listen to others. Studies discovered that the majorities of whites, Hispanics, blacks, and Asians think that people are happier when segregated.” Blacks don’t like living among us. Black law professor, Alex Johnson of the University of Virginia, said that the Brown ruling was a mistake and that school integration destroyed the black cultural community. A black sociology professor from the University of California at Berkeley says that integration “has not been approached or achieved because nobody wants it. Blacks have always wanted to associate with themselves.” We know Mexicans don’t like blacks, and they sure don’t vote for white republicans. What about American Indians? Taylor writes: “One tribal leader explained that parents did not trust public schools that ‘have tried to turn Indian children into white people.’” Which anti-Kinist doesn’t hear the cries of blacks, Mexicans, and Indians to be left alone to their own people, culture, and customs? Anti-Kinists are anti-white.
Jared Taylor concludes his chapter: “Contact theory was wrong—integration does not result in yet more integration—but we never abandoned it.”
This is a crucial part of the history of our anti-Kinist brothers. Using state power, Marxist elitists attacked the minds of our moms and dads, and had this not happened, there’d likely be no anti-Kinists. We’ve only looked at the Marxist forces behind public education, but we could discuss how media, entertainment, and even immigration policy were manipulated as well in order to bring about an unnatural multiracial nation that nobody wants. Which reminds me of one last historical case for Kinism - namely that there’s no history of any successful multicultural nation. America is part of the pilot project, and we’re failing, as we’ll look at in the next podcast, Is Kinism Practical.
If you’re new to Kinism and this podcast is making sense, then you’re presently swallowing the red pill and you can handle a written addendum that I’ll include at the Tribal Theocrat post where you found this podcast. It will provide further information about the Marxist elites I mentioned. The take away here is that the anti-Kinist beliefs of our anti-Kinist brothers were engineered by the same forces that attack the Christian family in other ways. You’re all haters for not tolerating other religions, bigots for not allowing for alternative sexual lifestyles, racists for not appreciating affirmative action and favoring open borders, chauvinists for believing that men are the heads of their households, etc. The attack on Kinism is part of the same package of hatred of the Christian family. It’s the same liberal enemy assaulting the same faith and same people – white Christians. So, be consistent, and protect your racial identity just as your protect your faith.