We’ve grown accustomed to every liberal social cause being labelled a “gospel imperative” by the evangelical establishment. Evangelical leaders like Russell Moore believe that everything from international hunger, to unmitigated religious freedom, to open borders for Western countries, to racial reconciliation should be considered “Gospel issues.” He isn’t alone. Racial reconciliation was a major theme of this year’s PCA General Assembly, and the Southern Baptist Convention likewise passed many resolutions supporting leftist social causes such as immigration rights while choosing to dis-fellowship the church attended by nationalist and traditional conservative James Edwards. Everyone agrees that race relations are a major issue, and the general consensus is that this is the fault of whites.
Kinists have no problem advocating for genuine reconciliation between hostile races, nations, tribes, and clans. Christians have been committed the ministry of reconciliation (2 Cor. 5:18), and the reconciliation of Christ extends to nations and races who are hostile to one another (Eph. 2:11-22). Isaiah envisions the future reconciliation of the nations in which Egypt, Assyria, and Israel are all able to peacefully co-exist and visit one another (Is. 19:23-25). This doesn’t mean that national distinctions are eliminated, because they are part of God’s original design. The mere existence of boundaries is not indicative of hostility. How does a Kinist understanding of racial reconciliation differ from non-Kinist alternatives? The core difference is an understanding of ethics.
The Ethics of Racial Reconciliation
We ought to easily dispense with modern rhetoric that equates racial reconciliation with white guilt. The fundamental flaw of both secular and mainstream Christian notions of reconciliation is that it is based upon a flawed moral foundation. Reconciliation implies that two parties have been alienated, and very often that wrong has been done, such that the relationship needs to be restored by the guilty party’s repentance and the wronged party’s extension of forgiveness. Typically this pertains to individuals, because it is difficult to impute guilt to a collective group of people, although whites are often collectively blamed for the perceived sins of their ancestors. This isn’t to say that a group cannot take collective responsibility for the actions of some of their members, however, if those actions continue to impact relations with other groups of people.
There must be an objective moral standard to judge the actions in question, and this is the biggest problem with mainstream Christian demands for racial reconciliation. Mainstream Christians are generally indistinguishable from secular humanists when it comes to their understanding of race relations. Many mainstream Christians use mere differences in general experience to suggest that whites are oppressing non-whites. This was readily apparent in David Platt’s address to recent T4G conference. It is not unjust for whites to be generally wealthier than non-whites, especially in historically white countries. It is not unjust for whites to be better educated, more successful, or happier than non-whites, as long as there isn’t an actual sin being committed. Only Marxists identify success in and of itself with injustice. There is no biblical reason to expect everyone to be equal, so it shouldn’t surprise us that different groups of people experience different levels of success in this life. Jesus stated that we will be judged based upon how we used what we were given (Lk. 12:48).
Are there actual injustices perpetrated by some races that require repentance and reconciliation? Of course, but it is considered “racist” to point these out. Blacks and Hispanics are far more likely to commit crime than whites (which might explain some of the discrepancies mentioned above). Jews have played and continue to play a significant role in harming white Christian nations through their political and social influence. American Indians have often perpetrated unjust and unmitigated violence against peaceful European settlers. All of this runs contrary to the mainstream narrative promoted by the secular left. Christians ought to always seek and promote the truth. Whites are too often scapegoated as the sole villains in the history of race relations, and all too often mainstream Christians simply repeat this narrative built on lies. Genuine reconciliation must be rooted in a true understanding of history and Christian morality. This doesn’t mean that whites have always been flawlessly perfect in our dealings with other races, but it does mean that the very real sins committed by non-whites against whites must be addressed, and the perpetrators called to repentance. Christians must also reject the historical fabrications of the left against white Christians of the past. With that in mind, I have two suggestions of how genuine racial reconciliation might happen in the future.
Suggestions for Genuine Reconciliation
First, good fences make good neighbors. Ehud did an excellent job of explaining this aspect of racial reconciliation. Boundaries are simply a part of God’s original intent for nations as a means of preserving distinct national identity. How could this happen in our modern Western context given all the practical difficulties that this presents? Leftists have been working overtime to ruin the demographics of Western nations and to ensure that this problem will not be fixable in the future, making whites tiny and politically insignificant minorities in what were once their own homelands. Christian nationalists must preach that the demographic problem facing Western nations is a divine judgment leveled against us for our apostasy from the Christian faith, which is warned about in Leviticus 26 and Deuteronomy 28. The only means of restoration is repentance and reversion back to the true Christian faith of our ancestors.
Once whites have repented, there are several ways in which the demographic problems that modern liberalism has created can be solved. First, a newly re-Christianized Europe and North America would return to Christian standards of morality, which means that expropriation of wealth from native whites to non-whites would cease. This would largely dis-incentivize non-whites from coming to Western nations for living at ease on white largesse. Many would simply choose to leave of their own accord. Biblical standards of justice would also protect white citizens from the increasingly criminal non-white elements of society.
Another consideration is that newly converted white Europeans would be motivated to share the Gospel with non-whites present in their own homelands. Many non-white converts to Christianity would be encouraged and likely self-motivated to return to their ancestral homelands with the Gospel and whatever knowledge and education they attained while residing in the West. An example of this happening rather recently is Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, who returned to his native Russia after the fall of the Soviet Union. Solzhenitsyn returned home after a twenty-year exile in order to support his people’s freedom from communist tyranny. Solzhenitsyn prioritized solidarity with his people above whatever comforts he had grown accustomed to in the West. He is a fine example for future non-white Christians living in the Western world to emulate.
My second suggestion is that ethnonationalist and ethnocentric nation-building might have a role to play in future racial reconciliation. An angle to the various immigration and refugee crises currently plaguing the West is that there are non-whites who are legitimately seeking safety after their homelands have been destroyed (notwithstanding leftist lies about criminal “refugees”). For example, I have spoken with a Mexican man who came to the United States after seeing his best friend and sister’s fiancé murdered in Mexico City. He told of unimaginable violence that plagues a society under the unchecked control of criminals. There are many who reside here who could tell similar stories. Many of these people did not intend or want to leave their ancestral homelands, but they were forced out due to political necessity.
Fernando Cortés explained in a speech before American Renaissance that the mass migration of Mexicans into the United States is the business of crooks on both sides of the Rio Grande. Mass migration allows the criminal government of Mexico to continue cooperating with the cartels and pass off the problems of poverty onto the American welfare state. Mass migration is used by cynical American politicians to ensure more voters who support the expansion of the welfare state and facilitate the transfer of wealth from Americans to America’s expanding and largely non-white welfare-dependent class.
In order for many Mexican nationals to return home, they need a livable home to which they can return, and we are a long way from seeing this come to fruition. A re-Christianized America could play a part in helping this happen for our neighbors to the South. Volunteer American soldiers could lend their services in a new Cristero War to root out the cartels and corrupt political class and to bring Christian civilization to Mexico and create a society in which Mexicans could flourish. Such efforts would facilitate the return of Mexican nationals back to Mexico and foster Christian cooperation and unity between Mexico and the United States. The same thing could also happen in Canada, in which American Christians could help nationalist Canadian Christians reclaim their country. We’re obviously a long way from this scenario being realized, and there are plenty of logistical issues that would need to be addressed, but I do see this as a plausible solution to the major demographic problems in North America.
There is also the issue of Zionist interventionism that has created upheaval in many Middle Eastern nations and has been used as a pretext for the mass importation of Middle Eastern Muslims into Western countries. To solve this problem, re-Christianized Western countries need to end Jewish influence in their politics and pursue policies that are in the interests of their own people. These countries would need to acknowledge the role that Zionism has played in displacing people and creating havoc for Western nations who have been forced to accept an influx of unassimilable foreigners. Working to peacefully end unnecessary hostilities in the Middle East and to repatriate people back to their native countries will help solve the demographic problems that have recently plagued the West.
Ultimately the problems that have been created by post-Christian, pro-Zionist governments in the West will not be easily solved. These problems will never be solved without repentance and a re-conversion back to the Christian faith. Once this happens, the logistics of these solutions will fall into place. Racial reconciliation between whites and non-whites can be achieved only by embracing genuine Christian ethics. False guilt based upon false sins ensures only that hostilities will worsen over the coming decades. Whether or not the suggestions that I have made in this article end up playing a role in long-term reconciliation remains to be seen. One thing that is certain is that reconciliation will not come from a secular humanist utopian vision for society.
As long as Kinism and ethnonationalism are demonized by mainstream Christians, we can expect Christianity to become increasingly irrelevant. Christianity will regain influence in Western society only by proclaiming what the Bible really teaches about race relations and national identity as an alternative to the suicidal nihilistic vision promoted by secular liberals.