A Response to an Article on Kinism Published in the Puritan News Weekly

 

J. Parnell McCarter has written an article regarding concerns that he has about the policies advocated by kinists, while stating substantial agreement with much of the kinist position. The article is written in order to provide an alternative perspective on kinism and the problem of defining biblical nationhood. The author begins by stating his dissatisfaction with how non-kinists have handled their critiques of kinism. He states that kinism does address a very real problem in modern American and Western society. The author believes that it is the failure to acknowledge this problem that has left kinism unchallenged, and has left many opponents of kinism dubiously defending an unbiblical and undesirable status quo. The author sets out to identify the problems with the modern constructs of society, why kinism is supposedly not the answer to these problems, and what some plausible solutions might be.

The Problem with the Modern Concept of Nationhood

The author’s statement of the problems with post-modern society provides a clear and concise presentation of the biblical basis for nationhood. Mr. McCarter states, “The Biblical condition is for each ethnic nation to be covenanted to Jesus Christ and to serve Him according to the Biblical principles outlined in the original Westminster Standards. There would be an absence of large empires and imperial nations, for each ethnic homeland nation would respect the sovereignty rights of other nations. Each ethnic homeland nation would be dominated by the ethnicity of its nation, with its own language and culture.”

This gets off to a great start. I think that almost all kinists would be in agreement with this statement. Most kinists are indeed Reformed Christians who belong to churches that give full assent to the Westminster Standards, but kinism also includes members of Reformed churches that give assent to the Three Forms of Unity; and an even slimmer minority consists of Lutherans assenting to the Augsburg Confession or Anglicans assenting to the Articles of Religion (among other Anglican standards). This is really just a minor issue, and not a real disagreement. Kinists also staunchly reject the idea of empires in their truest sense. An empire is a political country that rules over several ethnicities. We believe that nationality and ethnicity are intrinsically linked, and that each ethnic nation deserves its own homeland. Plenty of agreement there!

The author then states, “Each nation could retain those aspects of its cultural heritage which were Biblical, but would discard those elements which were un-Biblical. They would legitimately seek to preserve those aspects of their cultural heritage which are Biblical. In order to do this, they would properly regulate and control immigration in such a way as that the preservation of their language and culture and its dominance in their nation are not threatened. … The very real problem arises when a people and nation is not run according to the principles outlined in the above paragraph. When a people or nation has become a multi-cultural, multi-civilization nation, then people become threatened in very real ways. For example, if someone who speaks English and is white lives in a neighborhood where everyone else used to be white and spoke English, but now has mostly become a neighborhood where everyone speaks another language and is not white, it is naturally very threatening. They have become fish out of water, and that is a very real threat to anyone.”

There is much to agree with here as well. I agree that nations have a right and duty to preserve their cultural heritage. I also agree that immigration regulation is essential to this maintenance. It is also refreshing to see the author acknowledge that becoming an ethnic and linguistic minority in your own homeland is a genuine threat, even if hypothetically religious differences were not a factor. So often we are told by the church that common faith is the only thing that matters for society to operate smoothly. The church seems to be preaching a thinly-veiled modification of a one-world society. The only difference is that the church seeks to substitute orthodox Christianity for humanism. The reality is that God created the separate nationalities. This was done intentionally for mankind’s benefit and for God’s own glory. It is refreshing to see Mr. McCarter understand this principle and get this right!

The Author’s Disagreement with Kinists on Intermarriage

The author states that he believes that marriage on the basis of ethnicity should be unrestricted. He states that, “This would not mean prohibiting marriage with other ethnicities and people of other nations, but instead making sure that entrants in their nation were willing to assimilate to the dominant ethnic culture, and not coming in such numbers and so rapidly so as to overwhelm reasonable means of cultural preservation.” This is naturally where he diverges from kinist thinking. Kinists are supportive of anti-miscegenation legislation that was a traditional staple in American law until the late 1960s. Kinists believe that there is certainly a role that the broader community can and should play in determining who can suitably be a member of society with the status of a citizen. As such, anti-miscegenation laws are justified as a means of preserving the ethnic identity of the body politic of any given nation. The author believes that this is wrongheaded, and will ultimately wind up exacerbating the problem of non-assimilation.

The author states that immigration restriction is reasonable, particularly involving cases in which the motive for immigration is almost purely economic or financial. I agree that immigration restriction is reasonable and necessary for the preservation of the ethnic and cultural identity of separate nations. This is a far better suggestion than the typical anti-kinist position that immigration should not in any way be restricted on the basis of race. I simply disagree with Mr. McCarter that anti-miscegenation laws aren’t a reasonable means of assuring ethnic preservation.

I do want to offer clarification though regarding the kinist position. Many kinists, including myself, believe that under ideal circumstances, anti-miscegenation legislation would not be necessary. In a healthy society, the authority of a father would be sufficient for keeping miscegenation at bay. Mr. McCarter seems to acknowledge that anti-miscegenation laws were instituted in the United States in order to act as a further protection in a situation in which different races and ethnicities were living in close proximity to each other. He states, “Anti-miscegenation laws and rules are an un-Biblical and misguided response to the very real problem a multi-cultural, multi-civilization nation poses. Historically anti-miscegenation laws have been developed and enacted as a means to protect and preserve ethnic cultures in multi-cultural, multi-civilization nations. For example, they were enacted in earlier centuries in America to preserve the separate status of slaves imported from Africa and white non-slaves in the same nation. But there never should have been a nation made up of a class of black slaves and a class of white non-slaves. Anti-miscegenation laws and rules not only do not solve the underlying problem, they compound it. It is an un-Biblical ‘solution’ to an un-Biblical situation.”

Mr. McCarter states that anti-miscegenation laws were originally enacted to preserve the separate status of slaves imported from Africa and white non-slaves in the same nation. This may have been part of the issue that anti-miscegenation legislation was designed to protect against, but it isn’t the whole story. It may be reasonably argued that these laws were passed in order to protect slave women from being raped in their position of compromise. However, anti-miscegenation laws also existed for other reasons besides the existence of slavery. Most anti-miscegenation laws prohibited or limited marriage between whites and Asians or Indian tribes. This was related to Indians not as slaves, but rather as members of another nation with full political independence from the American people. Slavery was not an issue here.

I agree with Mr. McCarter that slavery was a terrible mistake, and it would be wrong for a white nation to maintain a permanent class of black slaves. This is why I think that the best solution to resolving the slavery issue was proposed by the American Colonization Society which proposed to gradually abolish slavery by purchasing slaves through normal means, free them, and repatriate them back to their native homeland in Africa. This topic will have to be more fully fleshed out in another article, but suffice it to say that the issue of anti-miscegenation legislation is not intrinsically linked with the question of slavery, especially considering that these laws survived for about a century after slavery was abolished in this country.

I think that anti-miscegenation laws were particularly justifiable in the case of the American arrangement, since Americans have been abnormally close to other ethnicities almost since the foundation of this country. The author believes that this solution to a very real problem is unbiblical. I disagree, and I believe that such laws are based upon the general equity of the case laws presented in Ezra 9-10 and Nehemiah 13. In these passages, we see that the prophets Ezra and Nehemiah provide us with an inspired interpretation of the law in Deut. 7:3 and 23:1-8. It is interesting that neither Ezra nor Nehemiah are overly concerned with the exact details of either case law, but are rather broadly applying their underlying principles. It is clear that the measure of banning marriage to non-Israelite wives was primarily a religious concern, but it is also clear that both Ezra and Nehemiah were concerned with Israel’s ethnic identity.

One reason for this is that children born of these mixed marriages were disenfranchised along with their foreign mothers. Since children would not have been overtly unbelieving and likely would have been circumcised, it is evident that Ezra and Nehemiah were concerned about preserving Israel’s ethnic identity. It is clear that the measures taken by Ezra and Nehemiah were taken with the welfare of the children of Israel in mind (Neh. 2:10). It is significant that Nehemiah is said to seek the welfare of the children of Israel, since this term explicitly describes a physical relationship. In the narrative, Sanballat, Tobiah, and Geshem are foreigners seeking to ingratiate themselves with the Israelites for their own benefit rather than for the benefit of the children of Israel who are settling back in their ancestral homeland after the Babylonian Captivity. They even offer to help rebuild the walls of the city of Jerusalem, along with the Temple. Nehemiah responds that, as foreigners, they had no portion, nor right, nor memorial in Jerusalem!

While, under normal circumstances, it isn’t necessary to enact measures akin to those taken by Ezra and Nehemiah, they certainly are justified in order to prevent ethnic dissolution. These laws existed on a state-by-state basis throughout American history as a means of preserving America’s ethnic and cultural identity. The legislation did vary in their nuances from state to state, and was sometimes applied differently. An example of this was that Oklahoma was less concerned about whites breeding with Indians than some other states were. Outbreeding was allowed to whatever extent the magistrates considered acceptable.

Just as Deut. 23 appeals to the historical relationship between Israel and other nations for its basis of legislation regarding integration, legislation can be altered or amended as circumstances change. This is why I believe that it was acceptable for Ezra and Nehemiah to apply a somewhat rigid approach to these laws. For a time during the period of the Judges, the princes of the tribes of Israel even made a pact not to give their daughters to the men of the tribe of Benjamin, who were members of their own nation! This precept passed when Benjamin repented after being defeated in battle. Under more favorable circumstances, these laws could be relaxed. This variation existed in the laws of different American states and was certainly tolerable, as it ensured that outbreeding didn’t upset the established identity that typified the people of the several states.

Working Towards a Solution

Since Mr. McCarter believes that anti-miscegenation laws would be an unbiblical solution to a real problem, what does he propose? The first and foremost proposal that he offers is national repentance, and I wholeheartedly agree. It is very true that as whites, our chickens have come home to roost. We have largely sold the birthright that we inherited from our ancestors for transient material comfort. There have been extrinsic influences in our decadence as well. Neoconservatives are glad to promote Israel’s ethnic interests and remain indifferent or hostile to the ethnic interests of the West. Even still, whites, and especially white Christians, have allowed ourselves to be willingly duped. Mr. McCarter is spot on when he says, “We as white Americans in the past and in the present have largely brought these problems on ourselves.”

As a result of this, Mr. McCarter envisions that the current United States ought to be partitioned into ethnic homelands for the various people currently residing in the United States. Mr. McCarter points out that much of our current circumstances can at least partially be attributed to what previous generations of whites have done in their interactions with non-whites. Whites haven’t always been upright in all of their dealings with Indian tribes. I do sympathize with Indians who wanted to preserve their way of life, cultural heritage, and people. It is also true that whites made a terrible mistake with their involvement with the slave trade. I do differ somewhat with Mr. McCarter in terms of white culpability. Although whites were not always righteous when they dealt with Indians, I believe that their conduct far exceeded how the Indian tribes typically even treated each other. Whites did make a concerted effort to buy land that they occupied and to respect the land rights of Indians as separate sovereign nations. Many wars between whites and Indians were legitimately defensive wars in which whites were responding to the unjust slaughter of peaceful whites, often women and children. I don’t feel particularly remorseful for territory gained in this regard, and I don’t believe that America’s current ethnic problems are derived from these Indian wars.

While I do think that white merchants’ involvement in the Atlantic slave trade was problematic to say the least, I also don’t think that it was as morally repulsive as it is often described. It is true that the Atlantic slave trade was a source of constant derision amongst Europe’s more conscientious classes for generations, but it is also true that the slaves traded on this route were already enslaved in wars between the various tribes in Africa, and were traded to Western merchants by African tribal leaders for commodities such as rum. The problem with the slavery and the slave trade, as Mr. McCarter points out, is that it created a large class of blacks who were intrinsically disenfranchised in a white ethno-state. This situation was not sustainable on a long-term basis, and most of America’s Founders were aware of this. Thomas Jefferson wrote in his treatise, Notes on the State of Virginia, that whites had the proverbial “wolf by the ears” in regards to Negro slavery. The blacks that were brought here and born here didn’t choose to come here, so I agree that there is a problem in simply compelling peaceful blacks to leave against their will. An entire separate article will have to be written at some point in the future to determine how to solve this problem today, but I think that during the slavery debate, the best proposal was that of the American Colonization Society, which sought to legally end slavery by buying slaves and repatriating them back to their homeland in West Africa.

I believe that the Mexican-American War is especially misunderstood today. Many simply view this conflict as American imperialists wantonly stealing Mexican possessions in what is now the American southwest. The reality is far different from the contemporary court history. Texas and the rest of the American southwest had only been a part of Mexico for a few decades after Mexican independence from Spain. There were very few actual Mexicans in the American southwest at this time: only about 1% of Hispanics living in the American southwest today are descended from Hispanics present in the region during the days of Mexican political control. Most of the inhabitants in the southwest during this time were white Spaniards and white Anglo-Americans who came at the behest of the Mexican government. Texas had just gained its independence from Mexico as an independent republic in 1836, and was annexed to the United States as a state in 1845. The impetus for independence had come in 1835 when Texas, was one of seven Mexican states that rebelled after Santa Anna rescinded the Mexican Constitution and declared himself dictator. Texas acquired her independence after several encroachments were made by the Mexican government under General Antonio Lopez de Santa Anna. Santa Anna grudgingly agreed to the independence of Texas, but as soon as he returned to Mexico, he reneged on his previous agreement and argued that Texas should still be considered a part of Mexico. He also engaged in a boundary dispute, arguing that Texas ended at the more northern Nueces River, as opposed to the Rio Grande River, where the boundary exists today. Mexico made momentarily successful incursions into Texas and this helped push Texas towards a desire for American statehood.

Texas was internationally recognized as independent from Mexico, and the annexation of Texas as an American state prompted the despotic Mexican government to declare war on the United States. President James Knox Polk sent General Zachary Taylor to Texas to defend the border, and emissary John Slidell to Mexico to negotiate a settlement. Slidell was instructed to remain firm on the issue of Texan independence and American statehood, and he allowed Mexico to waive 3.25 million dollars in recognized though unpaid liabilities, in exchange for recognition of the Rio Grande border. Slidell was also authorized to offer the Mexican government up to 15 million dollars for what is essentially now the American southwest. Mexico had every opportunity to make peace with America and avoid military conflict. The Mexican government made a colossal blunder and refused to even see Slidell. This refusal to negotiate prompted President Knox to order the American troops under Taylor to occupy the territory between the Nueces River and the Rio Grande River, but Taylor was ordered not to engage Mexicans in combat. In April 1846, Mexican troops engaged these soldiers and killed several of them. There was no turning back now. Pulitzer Prize winning historian Justin Smith sums up Mexico’s attitude succinctly: “Mexico wanted [war]; Mexico threatened it, Mexico issued orders to wage it.” The war had commenced, and America made short work of her Mexican enemies, greatly expanding her territory as a consequence. What America gained from Texas and the rest of the Mexican Cession was only loosely politically connected to Mexico for a few decades.¹

Mr. McCarter naturally expresses remorse at the policies of Hispanic radicals. “In the light of these scandalous sins, there are some radical Mexicans who want to see us white, English-speaking Americans chased back to Europe, arguing that as the solution. There is an irony in Spanish-speaking Mexicans with Spanish as well as Indian blood advocating this, for last I saw Spain is as much a part of Europe as England is. And even many American Indians today have a significant amount of Caucasian blood in them, given the inter-marriage over the centuries. No, advocacy of one group leaving the continent is no solution at all, but a recipe for conflict and war.”

I’m not particularly surprised by the reactions that Hispanics have to the presence of Anglo-Americans in territory that they perceive to be their own. Most Hispanics are a mixture of Spanish European and Amerindian ancestry. The fact that most Hispanics don’t feel a kinship with other people of European extraction is to be expected. Being of mixed race often leads to identity confusion and idiosyncratic resentment towards an ethnicity that makes up part of their heritage. Barack Obama, Halle Berry, and Alicia Keys are three examples of mullatoes who were abandoned at an early age by their black fathers, raised by their white mothers and white extended families, but still managed to identify as black and bear resentment against white culture. We see this in many Hispanics residing in America, although this problem is augmented due to their larger numbers. We can only imagine how much worse this sort of problem will become if we continue down this road towards further racial confusion and alienation.

Concluding Thoughts

I’m encouraged to see thinkers like Mr. McCarter thinking outside of the propositional box on the question of national identity. As a kinist, I can easily take his criticism of particular elements of kinism in stride without taking things personally. I agree with much of what he says, and I would like to dialogue more with the author on how ethnic homelands can be achieved on the North American continent and how they can be restored throughout the West. I still believe that miscegenation restrictions will have to play a role in the restoration of our ethnic identity here because of the nature of our current situation.

The reason I mention all of this history above is that I don’t think that past injustices that white Americans are the primary cause of our current dispossession. Although whites clearly weren’t always sinless in their dealings with non-whites on this continent, I think that we have far less guilt in our conduct than most people attribute to whites today. I don’t suggest that Mr. McCarter has an irrational bias against whites, but I don’t especially see our current dilemma as the result of our past wrongs. I believe that our modern circumstances are the result of our national apostasy from the Christian faith and the consequent loss of identity that this entails. As with the apostasy of Israel of old, God promises that disinheritance will be the result.² Certainly there are extrinsic factors in play. Black and Hispanic liberation theology, liberal Jewish influences on the American media, Hollywood, and banking haven’t helped. But when we get down to the heart of the issue, we can only but blame ourselves for our current predicament. I wholeheartedly agree with the author on the need for national repentance and the right of ethnic nations to retain their own homelands. I believe that anti-miscegenation laws are as appropriate for retaining national identity as immigration restriction laws are. Both of these are justified by the general equity of Deut. 23 and can be adjusted as the need arises. Ezra and Nehemiah’s application of the assimilation law in Deut. 23 demonstrates that such laws can be created and adjusted to suit the circumstances that we find ourselves in.

Given that our current demographic situation in the West is particularly dire, I would justify restricting immigration and outbreeding even more than might normally be necessary. When I wrote earlier about ethno-nationalism, I endorsed Samuel Rutherford’s view that biblical government is essentially patriarchal. A man who is a husband and father governs his household, and he has a vested interest in seeing his household succeed and prosper. This principle can be applied to different forms of government, since nations are at levels of maturity and civilization. Just as a father doesn’t lead his adult children the same way as when they were young, neither should the form or role of government be unaltered in societies that are more or less civilized than others.

What we are currently experiencing is the absolute breakdown of authority and civilized accountability that has existed for many generations. Our current circumstances are analogous to a rebellious teenager who is making all of the wrong choices and who is on a course for total destruction. A wise parent will not treat this rebellious teen the same way that he would a young obedient child or especially a mature, advanced adult. The same needs to be applied to our policies during this time of crisis. Previous generations were more mature and more civilized, and this was reflected in their approach to virtually all social issues. The authority of husbands and fathers helped prevent their daughters from marrying undesirable suitors under the guise of misguided love. Whites retained a strong enough sense in their identity that immigration enforcement wasn’t nearly as difficult as it has become today. Even under these circumstances, strict immigration, naturalization, and intermarriage policies were in place to prevent the loss of our identity to multiculturalism.

This is why I believe that strict policies of restricting immigration, naturalization, and intermarriage should be reinstated. I don’t believe that policies like ethnic-based immigration restriction or prohibitions against intermarriage are unbiblical or sinful, since we clearly see Ezra and Nehemiah utilizing these types of measures to protect Israel’s ethnic, cultural, and religious identity. I do think that an ethnic partition of some kind, as the author suggests, might be necessary in the future. I believe that God has given North America to us, but has dispossessed us of our inheritance. So, for the time being, some form of partition might become an unfortunate necessity.³ I look forward to the day when the West has gotten back on her feet and no longer requires the need of strict policies to protect her identity. But we must be realistic about where we are right now, and what must be done to get us back on track.

 

Tweet