Doug Wilson is a Reformed pastor and author living in Moscow, Idaho. In a short interview clip, Doug Wilson recently discussed Kinism. Since Faith and Heritage subscribes to the Kinist viewpoint, a response is in order.
The question put to Doug Wilson by the interviewer is: “Please give your thoughts on Kinism and the so-called biblical foundations for this view.” Unfortunately, he only answers the first part of the question and never addresses the biblical foundation of Kinism. Wilson responds that “Kinism is sort of a white pride movement.” This is incorrect; Kinism seeks to order familial, tribal, ethnic, national, and racial relations and duties in a biblical way, but is race-neutral and is applicable to all peoples. Now, we at F&H are Europeans and thus practice white Kinism, but this does not make the whole idea a white thing. In fact, most other races practice Kinism as a matter of course. However, even if Kinism were merely a “white pride movement,” this should not be an issue, since Doug Wilson specifically says in the interview that it is a good thing to be grateful for and to love your own people.
Wilson then makes the point that one can and should love one’s own mom without having to make fun of one’s friend’s mom, and he then accuses white Kinists of performing an equivalent sin in regards to ridiculing blacks. I will be the first to concede that one can go overboard when discussing the negatives of other peoples, and if that is the only thing you discuss, then that certainly gives a wrong and unhelpful impression. This is one of the main reasons that, while we are not afraid to address negatives, we try to keep an overall positive tone on Faith and Heritage: to promote the positive and weed out the negative in our own people, rather than incessantly hammer others.
An example he provides of unjust ridicule is when white Kinists identify blacks’ racial bent towards Marxism. Wilson objects to any Kinist assertion that a black’s affinity for communism is “typical” or that it has a racial component – even though blacks consistently vote over 90% for the communist Democrats. Is he really trying to argue that being part of a 90% majority is not “typical,” and that this has no racial component? This error is particularly ironic, as Wilson earlier cites an example of a vacuous accusation of racism – that it is considered “racist” to be against huge deficits and wild government spending. The very reason this is considered “racist” is because the typical black views big government as a racial wealth redistribution system in his favor. Contrary to Wilson, the fact that someone supports statist policy is, indeed, connected to and consistent with his minority status, so much so that it would make perfect sense to say, “Well, of course he is a commy – he is black.” On the other hand, whites have created liberty-loving societies across the globe for centuries, and the majority of white Americans continue to support liberty, so it is quite accurate to say that a white communist is betraying his people. Communism, of course, does not benefit any race in the long term, so a black communist is betraying the long-term good of his race too, but his betrayal for short-term profit is statistically typical, while the white communist’s betrayal for no short- or long-term benefit whatsoever is all the more inexplicable.
It does need to be noted that while white Kinists have a good grasp of what is, very unfortunately, “typical” black behavior and are willing to talk about it, we also give credit where credit is due. White Kinists often point to blacks such as Rev. Manning, Walter Williams, and Carol Swain with respect and even admiration.
Wilson, at root, does not seem to be comfortable with any negative racial generalizations at all, yet the Apostle Paul has no problem with them. There is not a substantial difference between the above connection of blacks to communism and Paul’s assertion in Titus 1:12 that Cretans are prone to be liars. Sometimes facts are unpleasant, but they are still facts. Wilson apparently does not want the fact that blacks have a statist bent to be true, and I would prefer that it was not true as well – but it is. Wilson’s position prevents the useful discussion of things like voting patterns, crime statistics, and the IQ bell curve and thus hamstrings any attempts by white Americans to pursue their own survival and self-interest.
Wilson seems to be okay with Kinism as long as we do not talk about the differences between different races, particularly negative differences. However, it is impossible to celebrate one’s heritage or race without supporting boundaries and distinctions, and sometimes this must involve the identification of deficiencies in other races. The overall problem here is that Wilson wants to affirm cultural strengths but does not want to face weaknesses of other cultures that are the opposite of whites’ strengths. He is essentially saying, “I love angel food cake, but I realize it’s no better or different from chocolate cake”: an untenable position, especially when the angel food cake is in danger of being wiped out by other cakes.
Although he still insists on throwing out the “Kinism is Skinism” straw man, Wilson states, “I don’t object to the Kinists who are saying you should be grateful for your people, you should be grateful for your customs and your culture – I’m all about that. I think that that’s a good thing.” This is quite the admission from someone who, merely six years ago, accused Kinists of being guilty of the sins of “racial malice and racial vainglory.” In fact, in saying that he does not object to others’ gratefulness for and love of their own people, Doug Wilson has basically conceded that the basis for Kinism is legitimate and positive.
A hat tip to my friends who helped provide material for this piece.