In the previous article, I said I think nationalism is a good thing. I find it important to note, however, that I did not say “white nationalism.” That is important to note, not just for those who oppose nationalism who might be tempted to mischaracterize my argument, but also for various alt-right types who might be tempted to overcharacterize what I said. I am in favor of nationalism. I am not in favor of white nationalism.
Is there a difference? Yes, and an important one. America has, for its entire existence, been composed of people with various skin colors. The attitudes on the part of many toward those with different skin colors has of course been a major problem at different times. There continues to be a good deal of racism today, on the part of every racial group, toward others.
But part of the problem with even discussing this issue comes from the fact that people use words perversely, to use the language of the Proverbs of Solomon. People call things by their opposite, where it’s hate to identify destructive behavior as such and it’s love to satisfy physical urges. Racism is one of those terms the meaning of which has been subtly changed to mean very nearly the opposite of what it used to mean. This is why it is now racist to oppose affirmative action, when affirmative action (by the old definition of the term) is an explicitly racist policy.
So what do I mean by racist? Perhaps it’s better simply to refer to the Biblical language of hating your brother without a cause. The Bible calls me to love my neighbor as myself, and Jesus defines who my neighbor is in the parable of the Good Samaritan, the story of a person who overcame massive cultural prejudices to help someone in need. So hatred, mistreatment, contempt or the like shown toward someone because of their racial background is a sin. We ought to treat people the right way regardless of superficial characteristics such as that.
This is no longer what racism means. Now, racism is defined in structural terms, where the nation is described as being an explicitly white supremacist nation, that whites simply are the dominant power block and therefore have disproportionate power merely by being white. This is what terms like “white privilege” are meant to capture. So, if you are white, then you are racist, simply because you are a beneficiary of this unjust power structure. Your attitude toward others of different colors is irrelevant. If you are a conservative, in favor of maintaining the status quo, the traditional way that America has been structured, then you are racist, regardless of what you think of blacks or Asians or whoever.
This is lying of the worst sort. It’s what the Proverbs call a “perverse tongue”. “Perverse” means topsy turvy, upside-down, backwards. Take a word with negative connotations, apply it to something different than what it’s traditionally been applied to, and you can direct a lot of rhetorical power toward that other thing without being clear to people what you’re actually talking about. Thus we get to hear how everything’s racist all the time now, and people are totally mystified as to why they’re being called racist since they harbor no animosity toward blacks or Mexicans or whatever, and the person doing the accusing can adopt a moral high ground and signal to everyone else how righteous he is at destroying the reputation or career of this horrible racist who doesn’t even know what he did wrong but is made to grovel and apologize anyway. It’s just a struggle session, and done for exactly the same reason, a naked exercise of power. Old institutions and ways of thinking are to be destroyed to pave the way for the new.
And there’s always a backlash. Today, the backlash is that the charge of racism is losing its power. More and more people do not care at all about being accused of racism. And in fact, this is breaking down the moral taboo against the real thing. This is the purpose, because all of this is cultural Marxism. Marx saw great value in societal conflict, as it was what he believed drove the historical dialectic toward utopia. He believed the lower classes would naturally revolt against the upper classes as tension increased naturally between them. But that failed to happen in many western states, especially America, because we do not experience class the same way other places do. Poor people see themselves as “temporarily embarrassed millionaires” in America and did not have the same level of antagonism toward the rich as a lot of people in other places do. Poor people saw opportunity to become rich themselves.
Marxists in America adapted. Since the rich vs poor dynamic did not have as much punch here as it did in other places, then they found other oppressed classes to work up. Women, minorities, gays, illegal immigrants. The socialists don’t care about any of these people. They just use them, stoke their sense of aggrievance, stir them up, create envy in them in order to create societal conflict. The conflict is the goal, because they hate America and want to destroy it.
So now the backlash is coming. We have actual white nationalism looming. It has become more acceptable to talk about white nationalism than it has been for all of my life. More and more people are coming out and saying, if the blacks and the Latinos and the gays can openly express pride in themselves, why can’t I talk about white pride? Why can’t I openly advocate for the good of my people if everyone else is doing it too? After all, what’s so bad about being white? If the left spent decades trying to force us all to think of ourselves as white above all else (trying to shame us about that fact), then maybe they shouldn’t be so surprised when they actually succeed, except we’re not ashamed of it after all?
Divide and conquer is an old tactic of empire, playing one group against another, in order to keep everyone off balance, the more easily dominated by those at the top. I believe the white nationalists are playing right into the hands of those that want to dominate this country, the statists and socialists who desire to dominate us.
So I believe in nationalism, that of culture. An ethnic group is a group defined by language, by customs, by religion, by attitude. America used to be a country that shared common values, where most everyone spoke English, valued freedom and personal responsibility, largely accepted Christian assumptions about the world even if some weren’t really traditional Christians. This is the nationalism I desire, a country that is formulated largely of people who view the world in somewhat roughly the same way, so that it becomes actually possible to form a coherent set of laws and governing institutions. It is simply impossible to come to consensus between a western Protestant Christian and a sharia-compliant Muslim. There are too many contradictions, as there are also with a Marxist.
Along with that, as I explained before, comes limited government. Nationalism isn’t trying to solve all the problems. It isn’t trying to create utopia. It’s simply saying, leave us alone to govern ourselves and live our lives. And that means government should be as local as possible. There will always be differences, always be a range of views and cultural expectations. I’m not advocating ethnic cleansing. But I am advocating not going any further down the insane road of multiculturalism, and starting to consolidate our culture, to build some cultural consensus on things. I’m not advocating closing the door to immigration. But I am advocating getting control of it, and making decisions about immigration that are for the good of the people already here, and respect the culture and traditions of the country.
I don’t think this is probably possible anymore in the USA in its current form. I think we probably need to subdivide into three or more separate nations. Northeast, South, West / Midwest, Pacific coast. Something like that. Of course that’s oversimplifying. But it might give us a chance to actually formulate policies based on a common set of cultural assumptions. It might be possible to have nations that are not so totally polarized that the only way to hold them together as a nation is through bribery and brute force.
So I didn’t say white nationalism, because I don’t believe in white nationalism. That misunderstands what nationalism is. Saying “white nationalism” is to identify myself first and foremost as white, and that is a false, meaningless category. It’s to identify myself by characteristics that don’t matter. It’s pride, and it carries with it hostility toward others for no good reason. It’s hating your brother without a cause. Yes, there’s a component to national identity that is geographic, where you come from, what you look like. There’s a component that has to do with what we think of as broad racial groups. But that’s not what really matters. I have a lot more in common with many blacks, many Latinos, many Asians, than I do with many white Anglo-Saxons. Common culture is what I care about.
22 thoughts on “I didn’t say White Nationalism”
Hello and greetings in Jesus’ name. I came across your writings from a friend who lives in your area. Your writings are very refreshing and inspiring. My family appreciates your bold stance against many unbiblical evils. However on this subject, although you are not nearly as bad and wrong as most of the church, it seems you are trying to virtue signal here or are at least closing your ears from the truth in order to escape the inevitable persecution you would face if you embrace the entire truth. This is unfortunate. I agree that most who call themselves white nationalists are misled and ungodly, however you ought to study the writings of holy men of God from early America. They certainly did not believe an American citizen was anything but a righteous white person, generally a Christian. Don’t be deceived because of counterfeit nationalism that rejects Christ, into bot embracing a godly white Christian nationalism. We pray you make a righteous decision based on truth and God’s word and not on the fear of man, which brings a snare.
Thanks for the comment. I have seen the arguments for kinism or white nationalism, and I do not accept them. Not because I’m afraid of persecution or disapproval, I hope, though I’d never pretend to be wholly without fear of such things. The fact is, though, I’m already virtually a Nazi from the perspective of the powers that be, so disapproving of white nationalism doesn’t really do me any favors there. I disapprove of it because I think it’s wrong and tantamount to a denial of the gospel.
If your interest is defending western Christian culture from the lies of cultural Marxism, I’m right there with you. I think God did great things through northern and western European culture, and I’m not ashamed to say so. But by identifying that with whiteness, you put the focus in the wrong place. You put it on man and not on God. It’s God’s power through the gospel that did that, not anyone’s racial background.
The divisions of the human race happened at the tower of Babel, as a punishment for sin and a restraint of the evil of man. It is not God’s permanent intention or plan. The gospel overcomes that, as the day of Pentecost proves- the gospel overcomes the division of the languages, and the multitude praising God together in Revelation is a multitude out of every tribe, nation, and tongue. They do not continue to maintain that identity; their identity now is in Christ.
So I don’t particularly care what early Americans thought, except out of historical interest. I know that some thought as you said. But I believe they were wrong. For the Bible teaches otherwise. Gal. 3:28 is one obvious example. So is Matthew 12:47-50. Sadly, in maintaining this doctrine, you would rob the gospel of one of the main blessings it has brought to the world. The gospel taught men to look beyond the narrow interests of tribe and family, to the good of others even outside their group, as the parable of the Good Samaritan teaches so clearly. Yes, a man’s first concern must be to care for those of his own house, to take care of his own. But who are our own? I think Matthew 12:47-50 answers that, along with others.
The devil often works by distorting Christian truth, and doing so is fiendishly clever, for he gets us both ways. Some will fall for the heresy, and others will fall by denying the truth the heresy is based on. Feminism is a Christian heresy, based on the Christian truth of the full equality of women, something the ancient world denied. So too is modern environmentalism, materialistic naturalism, and Marxism, both in its economic and cultural forms. None of those would have been possible without Christianity. We ought not fall into the devil’s trap in being so eager to reject the error that we reject the truth that the heresy has perverted.
“But by identifying that with whiteness, you put the focus in the wrong place. You put it on man and not on God. It’s God’s power through the gospel that did that, not anyone’s racial background.”
Do you identify as a man, or just as a person? Just curious. Do you believe the gospel went forth so gloriously in the book of Acts because the 12 apostles were men? Do you believe that God’s church leadership (when done correctly) only flourishes because they are men? Your argument falls flat on its face in this, brother.
No GENUINE (Christian honoring) Christian Nationalist denies the power of God for salvation, and equates his whiteness the way you are claiming. I hope you say this out of ignorance rather than hypocrisy. One does not have to hold that race is unimportant in order to acknowledge that whites have been so blessed ONLY because of their obedience to Jesus Christ, and because of his mercy and grace.
Which also brings us to Galatians 3:28, which if you are claiming what it sounds like you are claiming the verse means regarding race, I would assume you also now embrace female leadership in church, home, and civil government as well? Of course, I would doubt that; but I think you are being inconsistent in this manner.
The verse you cite in Timothy which CLEARLY is referring to physical/earthly family, and trying to erase its meaning with Matthew 12 is a weak attempt, to say it nicely. Obviously Jesus’ statements in Matthew 12 do not eliminate your responsibility to love your earthly wife and children more than others’ wives and children, and take care of them physically before all others, even if your wife and children are unbelievers. You are grasping for straws right now.
It sounds like you have built up a straw man in your mind; or I am hoping that perhaps it is just ignorance and you haven’t thought it through yet. I pray you are truly not making these decisions out of cowardice. But as you and I both know, the heart is deceitful above all things and desperately wicked. This means that self-deception is a reality that can apply even to men as yourself.
I also believe you are not Biblically correct on identities being lost:
“And the nations of them which are saved shall walk in the light of it: and the kings of the earth do bring their glory and honour into it.”
Nations = ethnos… this verse is describing that the distinctions still remain; not that they are erased.
Regarding your last paragraph, I totally agree. We cannot fall into either ditch. Unfortunately there are some nationalists who claim to be Christians who truly exalt their race about Jesus Christ. I write and video blog about these folks and speak out against them. But you are throwing out the baby with the bathwater. God created a world where men and women have separate, distinct roles, though they are equally loved and important to God’s plan. The same holds true for nations. And God created nations not only to be religiously homogeneous, along with common language and culture, but to be ethnically homogeneous as well. This is clear from the reading of the scriptures. Nations are always based on common lineage.
God bless, brother. Walk in the light, and don’t compromise an inch from what God shows you. Keep an open heart to God’s will.
I would also like to mention one more thing that I forgot to mention, that I thought of earlier (if you will graciously permit): To say that identifying as white is “hating your brother without a cause” is bordering on slander and false witness. While I agree that if you exalt race above (I accidentally type “about” instead of “above” in my previous post) Christ, then you are guilty of idolatry, it is absolutely false to state that if I want to segregate and live among my own people, and not live in a multi-racial society, that I am guilty of hating someone. Just as I wish for my blood family to live in my physical home, I wish to live in a nation among my own kin, both physically and spiritually. At best you could argue that it is neutral and optional; but to say it is hate and violating the scripture cannot be defended Biblically; in fact, holy men of God in the scriptures testify strongly that the opposite is true.
I appreciate your stance on defending western Christian civilization, and I especially appreciate your recognition of the fact that at this point secession is the only logical option.
However, there are a number of points in your argument that I believe to be mistaken.
You say, “by identifying that with whiteness, you put the focus in the wrong place. You put it on man and not on God. It’s God’s power through the gospel that did that, not anyone’s racial background.”
I don’t see how recognizing the means through which God works is a denial that all glory and credit are due to God alone. When crops grow in the field, we recognize that God is ultimately responsible and we thank him for his gifts. However, that doesn’t mean that we deny that differences exist amongst different types of soil or seeds. Recognizing differences amongst the groups of mankind that God has created is not taking credit away from Him.
You say, “The divisions of the human race happened at the tower of Babel, as a punishment for sin and a restraint of the evil of man. It is not God’s permanent intention or plan. The gospel overcomes that, as the day of Pentecost proves- the gospel overcomes the division of the languages, and the multitude praising God together in Revelation is a multitude out of every tribe, nation, and tongue. They do not continue to maintain that identity; their identity now is in Christ.”
I find this argument especially puzzling because elsewhere you suggest that you are in favor of civic nationalism, which presumably is based on shared language, culture or territory. But how could the Pentecostal gifts possibly on the one hand DENY the validity of nationalism based on common ethnicity, but on the other hand AFFIRM the validity of civic nationalism based on language, culture or territory?
The same goes for your use of Galatians. It seems like you are ok with Jews and Greeks having distinct nations with different languages, cultures and territories, but as soon as ethnicity is introduced as a criterion for citizenship, suddenly the teaching of Galatians is being violated. This seems highly inconsistent.
Your use of Matthew 12 is probably the most puzzling. In that passage Jesus says that we must in some sense deny our own IMMEDIATE family, not our tribe or race. Presumably you believe that the nuclear family is a legitimate form of social organization. How can a comment by Jesus about the nuclear family be used to suggest that the nuclear family is an legitimate social unit but the race or tribe is not a legitimate social unit?
You say, “So hatred, mistreatment, contempt or the like shown toward someone because of their racial background is a sin. We ought to treat people the right way regardless of superficial characteristics such as that.”
I agree with what you say here, but believing in racial differences or ethno-nationalism in no way implies that one is guilty of hatred, mistreatment or contempt. You and I both agree that allowing millions of muslim immigrants into the West will cause problems, but that doesn’t mean that we hate muslims or want to mistreat them. It just means that we recognize very real differences between muslims and non-muslims. The same goes for ethno-nationalists like myself: I think that allowing millions of non-white immigrants into the West will cause problems, but that doesn’t mean that I hate or want to mistreat them.
I think a lot of your errors stem from the faulty definition of “racism” that you have adopted.
I might have time to get into details a little later today. Until then, maybe you can answer- given that western Christian civilization by the grace of God accomplished tremendous progress in many areas, what do you think whiteness specifically had to do with that?
Let me start by saying that kinism is not primarily about whiteness, it is about ethno-nationalism for all peoples. There are many advantages for whites to live amongst their own kind, but those advantages are present just as much for members of other races as well.
As for whiteness, I think it’s perhaps more helpful to look at our current situation and the threat that Western (and particularly American) civilization is facing. I’ll assume that you and I both support traditional American ideals of limited government, the right to bear arms, etc. These traditional aspects of American society are under threat for various reasons, chief among which is the shifting racial makeup of the country. I’m sure you’ve seen maps like this before:
It’s vital for us to keep in mind that without the large minority populations in the US, the democratic party would be destroyed. The bottom line is that black and brown people in the US don’t care about limited government or traditional American liberties. They prefer a large government that redistributes wealth and pampers the unproductive members of society. The blacker and browner the country becomes, the more left-wing and socialistic it will become. Liberals know this, and they brag about it. If conservatives continue to promote policies that increase the non-white population of the united states, they are aiding the enemy. At this point you might be saying that such voting tendencies could be due to cultural factors rather than racial factors, but as a practical matter, I’m not sure how incredibly important this point actually is. By now it’s clear that even after decades of assimilation certain racial groups persist in their negative behavior. If third generation Mexicans still display the negative behaviors typical of their racial group, wouldn’t this be a good reason to ban further immigration of members of that race? When our country is on the verge of being destroyed, does it really matter if it is race or culture that causes third-world immigrants to support socialism? As long as race is a good marker for behavior (which it most certainly is), that is reason enough to use race as a criterion for determining who is eligible for membership in your political community. If you’re still with me, that would make you at least a de facto white nationalist, if not a full blown racialist.
As a racialist, of course I would say that a large part of the black and brown preference for socialism is due to their low IQ and the attendant limited ability to delay gratification. These inferiorities are of course largely responsible for the fact that African and Amerindian peoples were at a very low level of civilization before they came in contact with whites.
Finally, I would like to hear how you respond to the details of my previous comment. You started out this conversation holding the view that white nationalism is sinful. I don’t think the Bible verse you provided do anything to prove this position.
OK, thanks for answering. You both, Clement and Hans, have written a lot, so I’ll see if I can respond to all of it. I’m not promising that I’m going to spend a lot of time on this. Obviously since the two of you identify as Kinists you’ve done a lot more honing of your arguments than I have on this particular subject, but I think it’s important to note that having lots of arguments on a particular topic doesn’t translate into being right.
Out of curiosity, is the first “i” in “kinist” long or short?
Regarding Galatians 3:28, actually Colossians 3:11 might even be the better passage to make my point, since there Paul is specifically talking about the way we view our fellow Christian. Within that context, given our unity in Christ, the racial division is viewed as simply irrelevant. This is within the church. Now yes, I’m still in favor of male leadership in the church and home. I am still in favor of distinctions between men and women, and I am also in favor of economic relations of employer and employee, and honoring those the way God tells us to. But nonetheless, the passages need to mean something. I believe both of them, and especially the Colossians passage, are telling us how to view our fellow Christians, and how to view our own identity.
So the Christian relationship leaves in place the marriage relationship, but it also heavily changes it. The man is no longer the head of his home because he is the ontological superior of the wife, the way the ancients viewed it. There is still master and servant, but now the master must view his servant as his equal in God’s eyes, his fellow-heir of the kingdom of God. That fundamentally alters that relationship. And further, the male-female and master-servant relationship are not only both altered by the gospel, they are also altered in different ways. They are not exact parallels. So maleness and femaleness do not come and go, and the man will always be the head of the home within the marriage, but the master is not perpetually over the servant- the servant may be freed of the master or may even become the master himself. All this is to say that although all of those relationships still exist, they are fundamentally altered by the gospel, and the gospel needs to tell us in precisely what way the relationships are altered. The rest of the Bible tells us a lot about how to view the husband-wife or master-servant relationship. It tells us nothing about maintaining racial distinctives that I can see. The Colossians passage in particular tells me to treat others a certain way because of our fundamental unity in Christ.
So then, I am still a nationalist, meaning I believe that in this cursed and fallen world, the best thing is for those of a similar cultural bent to rule themselves, in small units of government. But first, keep in mind the distinction between the church and the state. In the state, I have very limited ends- really just stability and justice. I don’t think we should look to states to do much at all. But the church is different. This is the community that Christ made, and it is international in nature, and the only cultural unifier there is Christ. In the state, I accept that a lot of people are not going to be Christians, and therefore I recognize very limited aims. I am not trying to recreate the brotherhood of all men on the level of civil government. I think that’s a very dangerous idea. But that’s exactly what Christ is doing in the church.
Thus, my use of the passage in Matthew 12. No, I do not believe that the family is dissolved by the gospel. But it is no longer fundamental. My primary identity is now not as a father, a husband, a son. Jesus said that unless I hate my father, mother, wife, children, son, daughter, I am not worthy of entering the kingdom of God. Now this is a pretty typical bit of hyperbole from our Lord, but we can’t just dismiss it. I believe he’s teaching me that my identity as a Christian must become primary in my mind, that I am willing to lose any other relationship for the sake of Christ.
Now that doesn’t mean I divorce my wife and abandon my kids, and it doesn’t mean that I abandon my civil obligations or identity either, but it does mean that all of those identities become less important- much less important. It even changes the reason I do those things and the way I do them. I’m going to love my wife and raise my kids first and foremost as an act of loyalty and thanksgiving to Christ, not to them. That’s why Paul always says “as unto the Lord” when he’s describing those relationships. Every earthly relationship I possess, I will lose one day, unless I share that higher relationship of union with Christ. If my wife is not in Christ, then she will be in hell and I will be in heaven. So that relationship must become secondary in my mind. If not, when that time comes, I will choose her over Christ.
So then, with that in mind, how does that effect my view of nationalism? First, within the church, it means that such concerns must be irrelevant. We must not use our white identity as a reason to keep people out of the church. That simply is no valid criteria to decide who can be a member of my church or not. All that matters is that they share faith in Christ. The church is explicitly a trans-national organization. And further, it’s Christ’s organization, not ours, and we don’t make the rules. I see no Scriptural basis anywhere for excluding people from the church based on race or ethnicity.
In the state, it’s a little more complex. But remember the very limited expectations we have for the state. There, I do accept that it is wise and prudent to form nations based on shared culture. But it’s actually the cultural norms that matter. In this country, it’s not the blacks and browns that are really the problem. It’s the whites. It’s northeastern liberals and west coast liberals. It’s the Kennedys, and the Clintons, and people like that. There’s plenty of people of good Anglo-Saxon stock who have been pushing the messianic state for over a century. Woodrow Wilson was a Scottish Presbyterian. FDR, LBJ, the progressive movement, etc. Yes, they are using minority groups to advance their agenda but they’re the ones pulling the strings. They’re the actual problem.
So should I feel more affinity on a civil level with Hillary Clinton than with Clarence Thomas, or with Elizabeth Warren (notwithstanding her Cherokee blood! Hah!) than Ben Carson? What is it that actually matters? If I make race a proxy for behavior, then I actually end up putting the focus in the wrong place, and building a nation on the wrong foundation. If I actually just focus on the cultural norms- saying to potential immigrants, like we used to, here is our faith, here is our language, here are our expectations about the way we treat women and children, the way we view legal issues, and we expect you to abide by our norms and we were actually willing to enforce those norms, then we’re actually focusing on what matters. It may be that many members of those other ethnic groups, because of different culture, will not be able or willing to abide by those standards, and so be it. I don’t mind if in the pursuit of that unifying culture, it stays mostly white. Ethnic diversity on the national level is no goal of mine. But if I focus on whiteness, then I’m going to give the benefit of the doubt to people just because they’re white, and plenty of white people are just as much part of the problem as blacks and browns. If I focus on whiteness, then what I’m telling others, including people in my own country, is that the issue is not whether they adhere to cultural norms or not, it’s whether they’re white or not, and then I’m failing in my very stated intention. You might say you can focus on both cultural norms and on whiteness, but really, people like simple stories, and so if your focus is always on this one thing, then that’s what will be in people’s minds as their identity- we’re a white nation, not, we’re a Protestant Christian nation. But if I’ve got Bill Clinton living next door to me, talking to my daughter, voting for mayor, how much does it help me that he’s white? Would it be better to have Bernie Sanders be the president or Thomas Sowell be the president?
I think white nationalism is sin because you have seen your identity as firstly white, not as firstly Christian. That’s a problem on two fronts, one because “whiteness” is an invented category based on Darwinistic ideas, not on anything Scriptural, and two because you inevitably view yourself with pride because of your whiteness and have contempt for others. You claim you don’t but you’d be the first white nationalists I ever knew that didn’t. And yes, I’ve known a few. I see hints of that right here in your writing- more on that in a moment. On the first point, there is a legitimate sense of identity in being English or German or Scottish or Italian, because that is about culture and history. Paul talks about loving his people, for example. I don’t even object at all to people preferring the appearance of those of their own group. That’s pretty natural. People want their kids to look like them. But to simply focus on appearance, that what matters is that someone is white, is to put the focus entirely on external, superficial characteristics and say that this is what determines the most important thing about who somebody is. You’re not saying, I feel closeness to others because of shared history and cultural norms, you’re saying, I feel closeness to others because we look the same. You’re judging by the flesh.
And then, the contempt. The race pride, and the race hatred. I know you say it isn’t there. But consider- Clement mentioned IQ. I am fully aware of the studies, and I think there are a lot of unanswered questions. But even accepting the evidence that there are different average IQs between groups- why is that? You say that higher IQ is the cause of the white race’s success. And that’s race pride, right there. A sin. You’ve put the cause of your success in your essential difference from others. Doesn’t that contradict 1 Corinthians 1:26, and the idea that God delights to work through the weak things of this world? Yet you’ve decided God works through the strong. Is the IQ a cause or it is an effect? In God’s providence, the African people were cut off from the spread of the gospel by the Muslims and brutalized for a thousand years through their vicious slave trade. The Amerindian people didn’t have the gospel at all. Might that have something to do with the IQ disparity? Is it the gospel and its pervasive effects for centuries that did so much good for white people, or white people that did so much good for the gospel?
So that’s what I mean by putting the focus on man instead of on God. You look at a difference in IQ, and you say, well, God used me to spread the gospel and advance Christian Civilizaiton because I’m superior than others- even if you say “because God made me superior than others” it doesn’t really change anything. The Pharisee in the temple thanked God that he was better than other people, and is still condemned for his pride. So yes, you have pride, and not in the power of the gospel to transform even nations and peoples, but you have pride in your own inherent qualities as better than others.
All of the passages I quoted were intended to show that our primary identity is in Christ, not in our ethnicity. I believe Kinists fail this at every turn, as they see their whiteness as more important than their Christianity. I see Hans has been struggling with this very problem, here-
I see he has been engaging with disputes with other Kinists or white nationalists because they do just what I’m saying. Now maybe Hans can hold this tension in his mind, and good for him for at least recognizing the problem. But I don’t think he’s going to be successful. I think you’ll either go whole hog and embrace whiteness uber alles or you’re going to see that white nationalism is contrary to the gospel, because it teaches you to put your identity in your whiteness first and foremost, and not in Christ. If your primary identity is not your whiteness then kinism has nothing left to stand on.
I can’t promise I’m going to spend much more time on this. Thanks for reading, though.
Thank you for your response and kindness. There are just a few comments I will make; I do not desire a debate on the issue over the Internet, as debates are a work of the flesh. However, I do have a few admonitions based on what you have written:
It seems that you are dodging and/or not adequately answering the very valid points both Clement and I have made. Maybe that is what you meant about not having your argument honed. And I concur with what you are saying; just because someone can “win” a discussion on a subject does not mean that the “winner” is correct.
Myself, I do not spend nearly the time on the subject as other Kinists do, because I believe that Kinism is just one of many important Biblical doctrines. If I neglect humility and fear of the LORD (as a few Kinists I know, do) then Kinism means nothing but intellectual head knowledge and pride. Thus, I don’t fit in real well with any group of Christians. But just because present day “White Nationalists” who are Christian have their priorities incorrect, doesn’t mean their belief on race is incorrect. Just as in America, the entire church is practically apostate but that doesn’t make the truth of Christ void.
I think you have many good qualities and believe you are walking in the light of the truth God has shown you. But now that you have been exposed to the truth in the area of race, you should beware to tread carefully. God will certainly chastise you (because he loves you) if you reject truth he is bringing to your attention. And your obligation toward your kin is a serious issue. The white genocide that has been happening in South Africa and that is spreading to Europe and America, if you ignore this and do not relieve the oppressed and seek justice, God will certainly hold you accountable.
I would also strongly warn you about your toeing the line of bearing false witness. You are using logic here in your post that you would otherwise not use. For example, you claim that if Clement states that failures of other races has something to do with lower IQ, then it is somehow pride, and a sin. That would be equivalent to me accusing someone of pride because they said, “I won the race because I am faster, gifted by God, and because I trained harder”…. same concept. The white race has done better than other races, and the means God used to accomplish that (which does involve effort) does not eliminate the fact that God is he who supplied the strength, intelligence, etc. And if this is your only convincing argument that Kinism is somehow a “sin”, then you are standing on a weak leg there.
You say, “I think white nationalism is sin because you have seen your identity as firstly white, not as firstly Christian.”…
This is true practically for most, but as an overall premise in of itself, is false. True, a “White Nationalist” identifies with race first. But a “Kinist” is someone who places Christ first (or should be based on the very nature of it, contrary to your objection) and his family (kin) after. The reason we call ourselves Kinist is the same reason a Christian might call himself a Creationist, and have a Creation ministry. The generation we live in calls for it. In times past, a creation ministry, fighting evolution would not have been needed. But it is in a day when Darwinism rules the day. The same goes on this issue: In a day when anti-white is the law, and white genocide is a very real thing, Kinism is called for, to oppose it.
Other things you have said are merely straw men, dressed up a little bit nicer. It would be nice to talk over the phone about this some time. Not for the purpose of debate, but to at least eliminate all the false presuppositions you have in your mind, which you have clearly inherited from the culture around us, and not from the word of God. I would love to answer very direct questions that you might have to clear up any misconceptions.
Thank you for your interaction, and I pray you continue to walk in God’s light that he shows you. I believe that like me, you will find the whole truth if you continue on your path. I have confidence you are a man that loves truth and hates wickedness. God bless, brother.
Well let me just ask one thing, and I won’t try to refute all the points- but if you’re saying white nationalism is a Biblical mandate, not just an acceptable preference, what specific passages would you point to to defend that proposition?
Not White Nationalism, Kinism/Christian Nationalism.
I don’t believe it’s a matter of just posting 1 or 2 verses and then calling “checkmate”. I think we have already established that ethno-nationalism is not sinful. But if you are truly curious about a general Biblical Defense of Ethno-Nationalism, I would recommend this article, chocked full of scriptural explanation:
My family is praying for you, that you will love the truth at all costs.
Thanks, Hans. That is my prayer for myself as well.
Hans, in response to your quote here-
“And the nations of them which are saved shall walk in the light of it: and the kings of the earth do bring their glory and honour into it.”
It’s an OT passage, that doesn’t see things in its full light. In Revelation, the multitude that is worshiping together has been called OUT OF every tribe, kindred, tongue, etc. No distinction between them is maintained. They are all alike the children of God, and dwelling and worshiping together in one city.
I will say, I strongly suspect there are a lot of other theological differences that are probably prior to all this. Didn’t I hear Rushdoony mentioned by somebody some time? I grew up on Rushdoony, and I still value many of his insights, but I am not a postmillennialist and I think Rushdoony’s focus is all on the wrong place. So I don’t know we’re really going to get very far on this, since we probably have some very different views of the aim of the Christian faith in the first place.
Clement and I have both read Rushdoony, but Clement is not Reformed (currently). I value a lot of what Rushdoony says and would consider myself a Theonomist, but I do not buy into the whole thing as a package (neither do I concerning any doctrine).
My belief is that the aim of the Christian faith is to make disciples of all the nations, and that Christ would have dominion from sea to sea. I hope that is your desire also.
Hans, I came across this post of yours just now-
I think it’s beautiful. A wonderful post. And I think if you follow those conclusions carefully, it’s going to lead you in the opposite direction from Kinism.
Thank you brother. I appreciate your encouraging words. Although, it won’t lead for in the opposite way of Kinism, and putting my Kin first, any more than it will lead me in the opposite direction of my obligation to my family, putting them first.
By the way, the word Kinist comes from the word “Kin”, thus the pronunciation.
We might make more progress towards understanding if we state clearly where exactly we agree and where exactly we disagree.
You and I agree that the Church is a trans-national organization to which members of all races should belong. We agree that political organization should be based on nationalism. We disagree on what criteria should be used in determining who should be a member of the nation.
I think you’re still dodging the two main questions here:
-How do your arguments from Scripture against ethno-nationalism not apply to your brand of civic nationalism?
-Why is it evil to notice differences between two different human groups?
You gave a longer explanation of how you interpret the passages from Galatians and Colossians, explaining the extent to which we should identify as Christians, not as men or women, Jew or Greek, etc., but I didn’t see any attempt to explain why the trans-national character of the Church makes civic nationalism ok but ethno-nationalism sinful. Clearly the passages that you cite teach that faith in Christ transcends all national distinctions, whether racial, linguistic, cultural, or territorial. I don’t see how you can say using race as a criterion is sinful but all of the other criteria are legitimate. Presumably you think that people who don’t speak any English or who have zero knowledge of the Constitution shouldn’t become US citizens. But you would never require knowledge of English or the Constitution before welcoming someone into the Church, and it certainly doesn’t mean that you hate them.
” I believe he’s teaching me that my identity as a Christian must become primary in my mind, that I am willing to lose any other relationship for the sake of Christ.”
I agree. But we are still permitted (even required) to value our families to some extent. I value my race (my extended family) in a similar way. That’s what I was getting at in my previous comment. However much the passage from Matthew tells us to limit our attachment to kin bonds, that would have to apply equally to the nuclear family and the wider kin group. You are trying to use the passage from Matthew to say loyalty to the nuclear family is still legitimate (although secondary to our loyalty to Christ) but that loyalty to the wider kin group is outright sinful. There is nothing in the passage to suggest this radical distinction between loyalty to nuclear family and loyalty to the extended kin group.
“Now that doesn’t mean I divorce my wife and abandon my kids, and it doesn’t mean that I abandon my civil obligations or identity either, but it does mean that all of those identities become less important- much less important.”
Once again, I agree, but I would add the clause “that doesn’t mean that I want to abandon my racial identity either”.
“I see no Scriptural basis anywhere for excluding people from the church based on race or ethnicity.”
Once again, I agree. But our discussion is not about who should be admitted into the Church. Our discussion is about whether or not race should be used as a criterion for membership in our political communities. Keep in mind all of the missionaries in the 19th century who risked their lives to bring the Gospel to all the races of the world. Many of them held views on race that would be denounced as “racist” today.
“Yes, they are using minority groups to advance their agenda but they’re the ones pulling the strings. They’re the actual problem.”
A few points here. First, you seem to be taking the “paternalistic” view typical of anti-racists. If non-whites are just hapless pawns in the hands of white elites and therefore can’t really be blamed for the problems they’re causing, wouldn’t that imply some sort of inferiority on their part? Second, I agree that liberal whites are a big problem. But just because liberal whites are a problem, it doesn’t follow that non-whites aren’t a major problem as well. I don’t see any logical connection there. Also, we are both in favor of seceding from the liberal whites in the North East, so it’s not as if I want to exclude non-whites but accept liberal whites into my ideal political community.
“I think white nationalism is sin because you have seen your identity as firstly white, not as firstly Christian. That’s a problem on two fronts, one because “whiteness” is an invented category based on Darwinistic ideas, not on anything Scriptural, and two because you inevitably view yourself with pride because of your whiteness and have contempt for others.”
Why is it possible for a civic nationalists to be a Christian first and a nationalist second, but for an ethno-nationalist this is impossible?
White identity was fully developed in the anti-bellum South (and the North for that matter) before Darwin. Whites in early America came to the conclusion that there were innate differences between the white and black races without relying on any evolutionary theory. (Incidentally, for all of the talk from conservatives that the Darwinists are the “real racists”, I think that Darwinism ultimately leads to radical egalitarianism. See here: http://truesonsofabraham.com/darwinism.htm)
I’m curious what exactly you mean by saying that “whiteness” is an invented category. We all know what we’re talking about when we mention white people. Whiteness is based on shared ancestry, shared phenotypes, etc. I don’t see how you can deny that distinct human subgroups actually exist.
“But to simply focus on appearance, that what matters is that someone is white, is to put the focus entirely on external, superficial characteristics and say that this is what determines the most important thing about who somebody is”
This is begging the question. You are starting from the assumption that race is only skin deep, while it is our contention that it is not. I also nowhere said that race is the most important thing about a person. I am simply saying that it is one amongst many important things about a person. You seem to be saying that it has no importance, and that it is sinful to think that it does.
“You say that higher IQ is the cause of the white race’s success. And that’s race pride, right there. A sin. You’ve put the cause of your success in your essential difference from others.”
First, I do not hold that possessing a higher IQ is THE cause of the white race’s success. I am saying that it is one of many factors that has shaped history and continues to shape society today. There are many other factors, such as culture, physical environment, etc., all of which are controlled by God.
I don’t see how it is sinful merely to recognize the objective fact that different races have different average IQ’s. Recognizing this fact could certainly lead people into sinful pride, but this is true of every single difference amongst people. Take wealth, for example. I doubt that a single rich man has lived who did not take pride in his wealth at some point. But it is not sinful for a wealthy man to be aware of the objective fact that he has more money than the average man. It is not sinful for me to recognize the objective fact that I am stronger or more physically fit than some other men, although that knowledge can certainly lead me to feel pride. It is not sinful to recognize that blacks possess certain genetic advantages when it comes to athletic activities (although I assure you many blacks take sinful pride in this fact). It is not sinful for me to recognize the objective fact that there are certain members of the white race who have genetic conditions that lead to them having subnormal intelligence. Now take civic nationalism. Presumably you believe that the American Constitution is superior to the constitutions of certain other countries, but it doesn’t follow that you must necessarily feel sinful pride.
Is it extremely difficult to divorce sinful pride from ethno-nationalism? I grant you that it is. But it is no more difficult than divorcing sinful pride from civic nationalism. Everything that you’ve said about white nationalists glorying in race rather than in God is true, but it’s just as true that the Tea Party types I have met glory in America and its institutions rather than in God. But for some reason you don’t conclude that civic nationalism must be avoided because of the sinful pride that almost always attends it.
As for the idea that the Gospel was responsible for the advanced intelligence of Europeans, I find this unlikely, given that East Asians have higher IQ’s than Europeans. You seem to accept the fact that different racial groups perform differently on IQ evaluations and standardized tests. The question is why this is the case. I don’t think that Scripture clearly answers this question, so we are to draw our conclusions based on observation. You seem to agree that Scripture doesn’t answer a clear answer to this question, since you framed your comments on the subject more as hypotheses than as firm statements of fact. If it’s true that you don’t think Scripture gives a clear answer on this question, how can you conclude that there is a 0% chance that IQ differences are due to genetic differences across populations? If there is a biological question on which Scripture is silent, how can say that certain hypotheses are sinful?
“Doesn’t that contradict 1 Corinthians 1:26, and the idea that God delights to work through the weak things of this world? ”
Elsewhere you have said that you admire and appreciate what the West accomplished when it the culture was faithful to Christ. But during this period of great piety, the West had unparalleled economic prosperity and global military hegemony. Wouldn’t that contradict the idea that God works through weak things? Basically this is another case of you applying a Scripture verse only to the question of race, and ignoring the implications that the verse would have for civic nationalism.
The reason why I think there’s a difference between ethnic nationalism or kinism and a cultural or civic nationalism is that culture is something the Bible talks about a lot. The book of Proverbs for example talks constantly about the difference between a wise man and a fool, how to tell the difference, and the damage a fool will have on the whole society. So it’s wise to base our expectations on that. I see nowhere where it gives me ethnic background as a criteria. I know there are some specific instructions in the OT about the Amorite or the Moabite and so forth, but I would not know how specifically to import that today, even if I thought that I should do such a thing.
The obligation of love is to treat others as I would be treated. And I would not want to be thought of as being a certain way just because I belong to a particular group, especially a group I didn’t choose. I would not want people to think that I am a particular way just because I’m American. I know you’ve objected to being labeled as being a certain way just because of the way others with the name kinist are, or because of others who are ethno-nationalists. And rightly so. I’ve labored to try to deal with your own views as individuals. So I think you should try to treat others that way too. And I maintain that it’s unsupported pride to think that western civilization has been as successful as it has because of some inherent difference in white people.
I’m not a geneticist, and I know the arguments about IQ are enormously contentious. Many questions still arise. But if it’s your contention that the black IQ is lower on average, then why do you think that is? And even if so, so what? Does that statistical difference determine the way I should treat any given black man? If a black man has an IQ that’s 130 does it make sense to treat him as a low IQ individual? And is it loving? And likewise, and far more importantly, if a black man is a Christian and a moral and upright human being who takes care of his family and acts as we would expect a good Christian man to act, does it make any sense to treat him as if he shared the more common pathologies of some parts of the black culture? And is it loving to do so?
From a purely practical perspective, your filter is a bad one. It selects for the wrong thing. If what you’re actually concerned about is a nation built on particular principles, then select for those principles. If you select for whiteness, you’re selecting for the wrong thing, and you’re building your nation on the wrong thing, and inevitably will fall into race pride as a result. The difference I’m proposing is that the selection criteria I’m advancing are the ones the Bible itself talks about- honesty, self-control, hard work, generosity, and the like. The Bible nowhere even acknowledges “white” as a meaningful category. Yes, obviously we know what that means, just like I know what you mean when you say “redheaded”. I’m a redhead. I know what that means. And it makes sense in the context of how I react to the sun for example. But it doesn’t make sense in terms of character. I’ve known redheads of every conceivable character. And I’ve known blacks of every conceivable character. So I think when you’re talking about how to treat people, how to regard people, then we should use Biblical categories, not made- up ones.
And Darwinism was around before Darwin. He just made it sound all science-y.
I know I haven’t responded to everything you said. I wrote a long post earlier and it got eaten somehow. And I have probably spent enough time with this for now. Thanks for the cordial and substantive interaction.
Likewise brother, thank you for your kindness toward us, and your willingness to discuss the issue as much as you did.
Thanks for responding to our opinions in a respectful manner. That is not the normal way non-racialists speak to racialists.
I’ll just briefly say a few things in closing.
It seems like your view is that it’s ok to analyze and think about cultural differences and genetic differences relating to physical appearance and physical performance, but that we must not even dare contemplate the possibility that intelligence and behavior have any genetic components. This is not a Scriptural view, nor is it a view that I have seen historically expressed in the Church. However, this absolute denial of genetic factors in behavior (prior to even making an investigation into the issue) is one of the cornerstones of egalitarian humanism. I pray that you continue to read kinist material. I pray that you come to realize that shaming and condemning anyone who suggests the possiblity of genetic factors in behavior is doing the work of the new world order humanists.
Clement, I think you misunderstand my argument. First of all, I’m not sure where Scripture teaches that intelligence is genetic. I’m also not sure where the church has historically taught this, since we’ve only just briefly understood much at all about genetics. I suspect there is a genetic basis for intelligence. But I don’t think that matters all that much. Some of the worst people I’ve ever known were smart. What was Bill Clinton’s IQ?
My argument is that the Scriptures don’t give me grounds to deal with people on the basis of their whiteness. It also doesn’t give me grounds to discriminate between people on the basis of their intelligence. It gives me grounds to distinguish between people based on their character and their culture. So that’s what I think we should do. It doesn’t tell me to marry a white girl. It tells me to marry a wise woman, one who will work hard, not complain all the time and not be promiscuous. It tells me to marry a Christian. So if I emphasize marrying a white girl to my boys, they may marry a white girl, think that’s the most important thing. Certainly if I tell them not to marry a black or Mexican girl, I may hope that will weed out many undesirable traits. But the thing is, we all only have so much bandwidth, so much intellectual sophistication. So my boy may marry a white girl, maybe even one who calls herself a Christian, and think he’s good, since whiteness is such a good proxy for culture. And then he may find himself miserable, since whiteness doesn’t actually tell him much at all, and that white girl may be a very foolish and wicked person, as many white girls are. But if he focuses on character, godliness and the like, then he’ll do well. Probably he’ll still marry a white girl, since most people are drawn to those that look like them to some degree, and that’s just fine. But maybe he’ll marry a godly and virtuous black or hispanic girl, and that is just fine too.
What I’m saying is, what you actually care about is culture, and whiteness is a really bad stand-in for that. Culture and character is the Biblical category, not this very broad superficial category. I’d take a young man as a son-in-law, as a next-door-neighbor, or as a fellow citizen who thought and looked like Thomas Sowell over one who thought and looked like Bill Clinton any day of the week.
“He who glories, let him glory in the Lord.” Not in his whiteness.