Kinism: The Only Theonomy

“We have now sunk to a depth at which restatement of the obvious is the first duty of intelligent men.” – George Orwell

Kinism is a term of admittedly recent manufacture, but the principles thereof have been with mankind from the beginning. The same continuum of concept has alternately been called familism, tribal theocracy, theonomic nationalism, or simply, traditional Christianity. For Kinism’s antique pedigree as the orthodox Christian social order is attested to in the warp and woof of the writings of all the greatest thinkers in Church history — often explicitly, if briefly, and implicitly everywhere else.

Of course, the neo-churchmen (alienists) reject all of this out of hand, insisting that if Kinism were the true Christian social order, it would have found its way overtly into all of the creeds, confessions, and rulings of the councils — which is simply to say that they ignore the actual character of creedalism as it has expressed itself in time: as predominantly a consortium of reactionary rulings. Confessions have always arose in response to errors of their age. They define the Christian faith always so as to distinguish biblical orthodoxy from the vacillations of the zeitgeist.

But, as with subjects such as pedophilia or so-called “gay marriage,” dedicated apologetics contra miscegenation, racial and social egalitarianism, or borderless one-worldism were not deemed as needing to be addressed simply because none could foresee a day in which churches would en masse begin promoting such moral aberrations. The fathers of the Faith simply could not think like our neo-churchmen, who now use every scriptural passage overtly communicating the reality of meaningful distinctions among genders, peoples, and classes as an occasion to excoriate as bigots and heretics any who might yet dare accept the perspicuous meaning of the text as our forebears did. Remember, if St. Paul says that “all Cretans are liars, evil beasts and lazy gluttons,” or if Isaiah says that Hammites are “a people terrible from their beginning onward,” you are worse than all of those things for accepting as meaningful their scathing critiques of ethnic groups as such. If a Christian dared speak like Paul or Isaiah today, he would be met with excommunication, loss of livelihood, and possible imprisonment.

As has been conclusively argued by many before this writer, racism, like sexism, homophobia, xenophobia, provincialism, and political incorrectness in general, is a fictitious sin very recently minted in the fires of cultural Marxism (which was merely a weaponization of earlier Jacobin principles), outlining a replacement for Christian penology, and thereby (and to that end) a counterfeit ethical system meant to supplant Christendom. In fact, each one of these new sins corresponds precisely to a previously cherished Christian virtue. Racism, for example, used to be known as patriotism, a love of the patria — an honoring of one’s fathers and identification with their descendants.

And thus, by the necessity of distinguishing the historic Faith from the genderless, classless, raceless, and borderless religion masquerading as Christianity today, arises the reactionary doctrine of Kinism. It represents nothing new, only a reassertion of orthodox Christian penology, sociology, and axiology as they were accepted by virtually every saint passed on, and thus opposed venomously by every antichrist living today.

But the most recent phase of the cultural Marxist revolution is particularly galling: many of those claiming to be theonomists today have suddenly begun defining their postmillennial ambitions in these same unmistakably utopian terms and according to Marxian ideals propagated by the antichrist Left. This ain’t your granddad’s cultural mandate; that’s for sure.

Of course, theirs is a truly impossible vision of theonomy, because God’s Law presupposes the very thing which they claim it to prohibit — identity, age, gender, class, region, affiliation, family, culture, nation, and race — all necessary distinctions in God’s Law, without which the Law cannot function or essentially even exist. If we prohibit the acknowledgement of the differentiable existence of things such as neighbors, fathers, mothers, foreigners, lineal inheritance, and others, the Law is rendered unintelligible. All must recognize that as much as the first table of the Ten Commandments assumes vertical separation and distinction between Creator and creature, so does the second table assume distinctions laterally between men. Even speaking of the first as distinct from the second, and seeing that both were entrusted to the esteemed prophet, Moses, we see this metaphysical necessity of identity impose itself upon us. More than lawful, such distinctions are lawfully necessary. Aside from these hierarchical, relational, and axiological distinctions between men and things, there can be no duties one toward another, as all would exist on an eternally zero balance, without variation; a society without debt or due is a society without charity or grace — a society without interrelation. An anti-society.

Distinctions are an indispensable precondition to theonomy. And to prohibit needful distinctions is to violate the Law which depends upon their existence.

Discrimination is seen then as a hallowed duty under every jot and tittle of God’s Law, aside from which all jurisprudence in every sphere is relegated to fantasy. If we cannot discriminate between persons with their proximate duties and rights in their various relations and resulting associations, the Law strips everyone of everything, even their being. No Pharisee ever dreamt of a more thorough means of using the Law unlawfully than have those who have declared themselves the de facto magisterium of post-Rushdoonian theonomy.

Yet neo-theonomists continue to grouse, “God is no respecter of persons,” “There is neither Jew, nor Greek, male nor female,” “We are all ‘one blood,’” “We are commanded to have special love for Christians, not our kin,” mingled with leftist slogans like “No race but the human race,” as if such citations refuted the existence of fathers, mothers, brothers, and others. But here we see that even their argumentation for the supremacy of church over family itself presupposes a certain discrimination and limiting of relational priorities — an inescapable feature of identification and belonging which Kinism, and Kinism alone, can account for. After all, calling God our Father, fellow Christians our brothers, and the Church our mother means that we rely upon the concepts of kinship, gender, and hierarchy as the framework for understanding our interaction with God and man. If my physical brother is seen as no special relation to myself, then the concept of spiritual brotherhood loses all significance. In order to deny Kinism, they must first presuppose it.

Clearly, if they love Christians or their pastor or denomination in a unique way, their assertion that Christ has abolished all preference, hierarchy, and honors is undone. Such discrimination of creed, membership, and testimony hollows out every invocation of categorical equality, as well as their insistence that we judge not upon appearance. After all, accepting the testimony of another is judging on appearance too, as none but God can truly know the heart of a man. In the name of anti-prejudice, they become the most prejudiced of all — and in the most profoundly hypocritical way possible.

So we turn now to the question of the feasibility of their propositional-nation theory: is a creedal nation even possible? By this, we do not mean to ask whether a creedal or propositional nation fits the definition of a nation. Historically, lexically, and biblically, such arrangements are generically known as empires, not nations. No: setting aside the definition, we are asking rather if a purely propositional Christian society can be coherent or viable. Is the idea even practicable?

Ferdinand Tonnies famously explicated the subject by the terms gemeinschaft and gesselschaft, the former referring to traditional identity and kinship-based societies and the latter referring to those based upon abstract individual, economic, or contractual (propositional) expediencies. Under the Wikipedia entry for the former, we find this excerpt:

Gemeinschaften are characterized by a moderate division of labor, strong personal relationships, strong families, and relatively simple social institutions. In such societies there is seldom a need to enforce social control externally due to a collective sense of loyalty individuals feel for society.

Now compare that with the Wiki excerpt on the latter:

Gesselschaften emphasize secondary relationships rather than familial or community ties and there is generally less individual loyalty to society. . . . [S]uch societies are considered more susceptible to class conflict as well as racial and ethnic conflicts.

The historical witness is quite clear — propositional societies are proven only to erode the family and incite ethnic as well as class strife. The ballyhooed tolerance of the open international-nation is really just a demand that a people yield to invasion, overthrow, and displacement. No matter their sweet language, it amounts to blatant aggression. Multicultural tolerance then evidences itself as nothing but a euphemism for suicide. Of course, following the historic Christian ethic on the matter, Americans long since passed judgement on the issue with the old chestnut, “Good fences make good neighbors.” True international and interracial peace is only possible when “every man know[s] his own and abide[s] therein”¹ and therewith. And anyone who demands for one group to yield to the needless aggressions of another (or all others, as is the case in every European-stock country, and only European-stock countries) in the name of ‘peace’ either does not know the definition of the word, or is simply lying to cover ulterior motives — motives which, due to the observable fruit, must be an extreme antipathy toward the European race.

Yet, the neo-theonomists still make chesty boasts of a burgeoning multicult millennium. “This is the twenty-first century. The open international society is inevitable and irreversible.” Not surprisingly, this “it’s inevitable” argument is precisely the apologetic outlined by Karl Marx for one-world internationalism as the eschatological fulfillment of communism. Same argument, same objective, same system. The millennium envisioned by the neo-theonomists is one and the same with the golden age envisioned by Marx.

And if the history of propositional nations (empires) has been the source of the most historical strife between people-groups and individuals, the neo-theonomists maintain it is merely because none of those other propositional escapades were organized under the correct propositions. Laying aside the fact that this too is a classic Marxist deflection, we turn to examine just what the re-imagined and re-appropriated one-world multicult “nation” described by the neo-theos would ultimately look like. Again we ask, is it possible? Is it even coherent?

Their proposal generally breaks down into two hemispheres — the primary one which ingratiates them to leftist secular society, and the one they switch to when cross-examined by Kinists. In the first, they describe theonomy as necessitating a pluralistic, open-borders society in terms of race, culture, and even religion. This description comports perfectly with NWO communism as expressed by every radical leftist group in existence.

Enter the Kinist, however, and the neo-theonomists’ story takes quite a detour, because the essence of their disagreement with Kinism is their maintaining that the basis for camaraderie and nationhood is spiritual only, not physical or cultural in any way. So, as the horror dawns on them that allowing citizenship to anyone not overtly (confessionally) Christian forfeits their argument contra Kinism, they jump to the only alternative — a Reformed, Trinitarian confessional orthodoxy as definitive of citizenship.

But this raises many questions.

If unbelievers and heretics were declared illegal aliens, to what country exactly would they be deported? If an unbeliever were an expatriate of no previous country, you would have no lawful jurisdiction to dump American problems on other countries. And if you did it anyway, those countries would rightly consider it an overt act of unjustifiable aggression. Oh, wait, we’re talking about a multicult millennium in which all countries are Christian and there are no borders (Borders keep people apart. That’s sin, say the neo-theos.) Maybe unbelievers would be deported to a terraformed moon? Who knows? Not the neo-theos, that’s for sure.

Or suppose they opt instead for regarding unbelievers as “resident aliens,” creating a second class throng of Morlocks, forever disenfranchised and wholly barred from political representation, much like in the Muslim practice of Dhimmitude. Is this the neo-theonomist recipe for millennial peace? Again, they are silent on the issue.

It should also be noted that such a system would bear no small resemblance to the “halfway covenant” theory (an essentially Baptistic concept) to church and community membership — the very experiment which notoriously destroyed Puritan reign in New England.² But the proposal of such a Baptist type of church membership as the standard for the theonomic “nation” is at loggerheads with its basic and foundational covenantalism.

It goes without saying that there would be significant lateral movement back and forth between these classes, as some children of Christian homes would, as experience tells us, never come to a credible profession of faith. Others who had at one time been sound in doctrine, suffering head injury, stroke, or senility, might awake spouting heresy. All such people would be stripped of citizenship in such a system.

And then of course there’s the problem of people lying about their beliefs simply to get citizenship.  What immigrant or adolescent would want to disavow Christianity if such a move resulted in deportation or loss of rights?  And thus any system constructed in this manner would necessarily contain a large and growing group of false professers.  This would be simply unavoidable and would, just as in New England, quickly undermine and then destroy the system.

We also must contemplate the magnitude of such an all pervasive government: Just how many INS agents would it require to keep everyone accurately categorized, distinguishing citizens from creedal foreigners? Just how frequently would the ecclesiastically certified selectmen have to run their white-gloved fingers across everyone’s doctrinal banisters? And once divested of citizenship, whom would the national ex-communicant have to petition for the paperwork to be re-examined for citizenship? Just how long would that line be? Would the functionaries of such a bureaucracy be church or state officials? Is there a difference between them in the neo-theonomist’s system? If not, then they have alloyed not only church, nation, and family, but government as well, into one chimeric, maximal state institution: a New World Order Leviathan. Babel revisited.

Most significant perhaps is the question, Where on earth do the neo-theonomists find any of this stuff in the text of Scripture? That one I can answer: nowhere.

The Kinist, however, can defer, as Christians have throughout history, to the archetype of the theonomic nation — the Israelite republic. We even have a straightforward and objective means of one-time-only documentation to determine citizenship in the standard divinely set by Ezra and Nehemiah — genealogies proving racial descent.

Speaking of Kinists, it is especially interesting to note that the neo-theonomists acknowledge one exception in their citizenship policy; they say their creedal standard would not apply to one category of persons — Kinists. Though we would more thoroughly meet the bar of confessional Reformed Trinitarianism than anyone (and they acknowledge this), they say we would never be granted citizenship, regardless, because they claim us to be murderers, even if we have never harmed a soul. On the contrary, they have resolved that upon seizing the reigns of power they would execute us outright, our orthodox confession be damned. Several of their supposed luminaries have boasted as much.

We used to call that hypocrisy, lawless, and murder. Real murder, not the ginned-up accusation of such. But in the wake of Rushdoony’s passing it is being pawned off as theonomy. Though I suppose these are but trifles to them who consider genocide of the white race to be the manifestation of God’s Law and Grace in society.

These spinmeisters even issue the same arbitrary ex cathedra rulings against anyone who dares to remind them that Rushdoony and all of his theological predecessors held to a distinctly Kinist reading of Scripture. They will declare you an honorary Kinist, whether or not you personally embrace the term. Anyone who happens to have a memory stretching back before the 1980s or who has ever read a history book, beware: they consign you to the same unmarked mass grave reserved for Kinists. They mean to entomb all their embarrassments in the potter’s field, and to strike from the books all memory thereof.

To clarify, the neo-theonomists maintain at once that…

• The Christian nation is spiritual, not physical. Anyone demurring from this is a racist, and thereby, a murderer, and should be executed without delay.
• There are no such things as Christian nations, only the one monolithic Christian nation. Any demurring, see bullet point above.
• The Christian nation is composed of all peoples — who aren’t actually peoples. Any demurring, see bullet point above.
• Nonbelievers and any incapable of credible profession of faith are non-citizens. This would logically include mental deficients, children, and the senile. Any demurring, see bullet point above.
• All Christian children are your children, and must be treated as your own. Therefore, all children are interchangeable and you are prohibited from having any preference for your own or denying all other Christians equal access to your children. Any demurring, see bullet point above.
• In the millennium all countries are Christian, and their populations interchangeable; therefore Christians must welcome invasion. Any demurring, see bullet point above.
• Segregation, whether racial, cultural, linguistic, or social, is murder. Therefore borders are abolished. Any demurring, see bullet point above.

The result is a borderless, universal empire under a one-world-government police state. And in such a world, it seems there is no longer anywhere to deport your “foreigners” (unbelievers) but to the moon, or, more likely, to the grave. It is nothing if not a baptized Babel — a New World Order police state — which they propose. It entails unimaginable bureaucracy, absolute tyranny, and perpetual forced social revolution. Any objecting to the universal leveling of race, nation, class, and family are resolved as guilty of capital offenses. If you hold your children to be yours, and not your neighbor’s, that your race is yours and separate from the African’s, or any other such acts of virtuous discernment, you are bound for liquidation. Their age of peace would by all indication be the bloodiest reign of terror and tumult in the history of mankind.

But, as is also apparent, the practical impossibility of their ideology is God’s built-in fail-safe to prevent their ascendancy. Their worldview cannot work for its incoherency. There is no fruition possible for it in the real world because it is but a fevered dream of square circles inspired by the opiate of cultural Marxism and the fear of men.

A hundred years from now, alienism and the cultural Marxism of the neo-theonomists will be formally anathematized. In spite of the last sixty years of government and antichrist indoctrination to the contrary, the Church will, and is already in some quarters, awakening to the reality that Kinism is the only brand of theonomy possible, as it is the only understanding of God’s Law which allows for the existence of things presupposed in the Law and on which the Law itself depends.

Kinism is the only theonomy.

 

Tweet