Marxism/Cultural Marxism

A Simple Definition of Kinism Offered And Defended

“Kinism is the belief that ordained social order for man is tribal & ethnic rather than imperial & universal. Mankind was designed by God to live in extended family groups. Blood ties are the only workable basis for a healthy society not subject to the ideologies of fallen man.”

Joe Sobran

Currently, there is a great deal of angst over Christians embracing Kinism or Kinism adjacent or informed philosophies. Currently, many denominations are absolutely in a roil over “Christian Nationalism.” Other labels by which Kinist thought travels under is “ethno-Nationalism” (a classic tautology) and “race-realism.” What is humorous about the Church denominations denunciation of all things Kinist is that often one finds the denunciation only to be followed by the insistence that there is a need to define Kinism. Clearly, if Kinism, or any of it’s adjacent partners needs to be defined for people how can it first be condemned?

I come across countless Christians who hate Kinism who simply have no idea what it is they hate. Recently, I knew of a particular congregation that found one of its members accusing one of its Elders of being a “Kinist.” When the Elder in question asked his accuser, “What is Kinism,” the accuser said, “I don’t know.” The accuser didn’t know what Kinism was and yet he was accusing his Elder of being a Kinist. How could he accuse someone of being a Kinist without knowing first what a Kinist was?

And so, I offer the above definition from Joe Sobran as a stable and simple working definition of Kinism. If we are going to rail against and rend one another over this idea of Kinism and Kinism informed theories then we should all be able to operate from a common definitional foundation.

I also think it might be helpful to offer a definition of what Kinism is fighting against. Often one can understand somebody in terms of what they are supporting and what they are for if one can understand what they are fighting against and what it is they oppose.

The 2oth century was the century that will be remembered as being that century which saw the rise and then the flourishing of Marxist thought. Marxist and Marxist adjacent thought comes in a host of packaging. Most recently it has been flexing its muscle in terms of Cultural Marxism. Whatever packaging it comes in Marxism has always been that ideology which is the sworn enemy of all forms and shapes of Kinism. If we were to define the aspect of Marxism that is in opposition to Kinism we would define Marxism, in a parallel mirror image of Sobran’s definition of Kinism above as;

“Marxism is the belief that ordained social order for man is imperial & universal rather than tribal & ethnic. As God does not exist, Mankind, per Marxism, was designed by to live disattached from any notion of family groups. Blood ties are barriers to a healthy society as defined by the ideologies of man as god.”

The goal of Marxism has always been the universal Soviet man who has no attachments to anything except the universalizing State. This universalizing necessarily includes the destruction of the kind of tribal and ethnic family dynamic upon which Kinism (and Christianity) is based. So, for epistemologically self conscious Kinist the choice is between a Christianity that teaches the tribal and ethnic familial particularity vs. a Marxist informed “Christianity” that teaches a universalistic idea of family, and by extension global nation.

The Kinist sees in those Christians abominating Kinism an agreement with Marx;

“Even the natural differences within species, like racial differences…, can and must be done away with historically.”

K. Marx’s Collected Works V:103,

As cited in S.F. Bloom’s The World of Nations: A

Study of the National Implications in the Work of Karl Marx, Columbia University Press, New York, 1941, pp. 11 & 15-19:

The Kinist hears in the agenda of any church that would vilify Kinism the echo of Marx’s partner, Friedrich Engels;

“Only when we have led every woman from the home into the workplace will complete equality be achieved, by the destruction of the institution of the family, which is the basis of capitalist society.”

Friedrich Engels,
Origin of the Family, Private Property, and the State

Kinism believes, following Christianity, that the destruction of the institution of the family is accomplished by advocacy for a universalization of marriage that does not respect the tribal and ethnic lines that Sobran speaks of in the above opening paragraph.

If one considers the historical embodiment of Marxism via their Revolutions in places like France, Russia, China one sees a two-fold destructive thrust. What Marxists seek to destroy first is the Christian faith as well as the tribal and ethnic understanding of family – built as it is from categories provided by the Christian faith.

Having explained all this allow me to say that it is my knowledge and so hatred of all forms of Marxism, including Cultural Marxism, that fills me with so much reproach for those who oppose Kinism. Kinism is the Christian elixir that cures the disease of Communism. The fact that so many in the institutional Church are fighting a central plank (Kinism) of the Christian faith in favor (whether they realize it or not) of a central tenet of the Marxist faith leaves me apoplectic.

What the enemies of Kinism have to do in order to relax the tension that has arisen over this issue is provide a social order theory that is an alternative to “tribal and ethnic” that isn’t at the same time Universalist. I don’t think that can be done. I think that one either follows God’s design that arcs towards tribal and ethnic or one follows the Marxist design that arcs towards the destruction of the Christian family in favor of a Universalist (Babel) impulse towards a global nation state social order. When this Kinist looks at this debate he sees either a movement towards cosmopolitan internationalism (the passion of Marxism) or a movement towards “Honoring our Fathers and Mothers.”

Picking At The Issue Of Culture

In the Christian anthropology man is being that is composed of two parts that are so closely integrated that some theologians have referred to man’s ontological reality as being a “modified unichotomy,” comprised of a corporeal dynamic (being made from the dust of the ground) yet also having a spiritual dynamic (God having breathed into him the breath of life). Some have referred to man as being a dichotomous being but this doesn’t quite capture it given that man’s body and spirit are so closely and intimately integrated. We can distinguish body and soul but we can ever isolate them or divorce them. God alone does that at death and then only for a season until our bodies as glorified will be reunited with our heaven dwelling spirits. Unichotomy is a clumsy way to express this union of body and soul (spirit) since the word itself means “One” and “to cut.”

I lead in with the above observation in order to talk about the problems with what we call “multiculturalism.” Multiculturalism, professing that it delights in a multitude of cultures in point of fact ends up creating a unitarian culture that disallows Christian culture since Christian culture is premised upon the conviction that inferior cultures should not be allowed equal standing with superior cultures. For example, while multiculturalism would insist that cultures that honor sodomite marriage should be protected, Christian culture would demand laws prohibiting such inferior cultural norms as existing among a Christian people.

The link between the first two paragraphs is that for multiculturalism, premised at it is on Marxist underpinnings, holds an anthropology that denies the Christian anthropology insisting instead that man is only matter in motion. Since man is only matter in motion and since there are no transcendent ethics by which man must be guided the multiculturalist seeks to create a culture that is unitary. Since man himself is definitely not a composite of body and soul and therefore is a unitary being then it is inevitable that man should build unitary cultures that disallow for any culture that insist that distinctions exist as given by extramundane God, who, according the to the multiculturalist worldview can’t exist because he is a spiritual being.

So, we have established thus far

1.) Multiculturalism is a euphemism that hides the unitarian uni-cultural agenda.

2.) Man created as body and soul has implications for culture.

It is #2 that I would like to tease out a wee bit.

When we consider culture we have to consider it as being the product of both man’s corporeal and spiritual reality. This is why when asked the definition of culture my answer is typically, “culture is a particular people’s religion externalized.” This is a slight twist on the Calvinistic philosopher’s “culture is religion externalized.” When we talk about what makes culture, culture we have to take into account our Christian anthropology which teaches that man is a modified unichotomy. We have to take into account that like man individually, culture is, a modified unichotomy expressing both man’s corporeal and non-corporeal realities.

Culture is the expression of men living in one geographic area that reflects both a shared genetic heritage (thus tipping the cap to man’s corporeal being) and a shared religion, belief system, worldview (thus tipping the cap to man’s non-corporeal being). Another way of saying this is that “culture is theology as poured over a particular people group.”

The implications of this are fairly obvious if this is an accurate assessment of culture. One implication is that where there is a particular culture that exists one cannot add too that particular culture either a large injection of alien peoples (corporeal aspect of culture) or a large injection of an alien worldview (non-corporeal aspect of culture) and still at the end of that addition have the same culture that one started with before the addition was injected. The application here to massive third world migration to the formerly Christian West should be obvious.

Another implication is that just as one cannot add to a particular culture either a massive injection of foreign peoples or alien ideas and retain the same culture, in the same way one cannot delete or vastly diminish either a particular culture’s convictions/religion/worldview or it’s genetic heritage and still have the same culture after the deletion or diminishing.

The implication of pursuing an agenda of either massive addition or deletion as described above in any particular stable culture will be significant conflict as the new mix vies for hegemony in the new culture.

Now, there are many in the Christian community, who will insist that culture is only a matter of an abstracted large number of individuals owning a shared set of ideas. They do not believe that a shared genetic heritage should be considered an element for building stable Christian culture. The problem here, for these will intended but vacuous thinkers, is that they are denying the Christian anthropology as applied to culture that man is both body and soul. Instead, what they have is an anthropology, when applied to culture, that sees man as only the sum of his thoughts. Historically, this line of thinkinking has been known as “Gnosticism.” This line of thought is Gnostic because it does not take seriously the truth that man is an embodied being, opting instead to see man as a brain on a stick. This line of thinking belittles the corporeal realities that make for the manishness of man.

Dr. Adi Schlebusch offers insight here as to the historical foundations of this errant form of Gnostic thinking that has invaded the Christian universe of thought;

“This (Gnosticism as applied to defining culture) is the basic tenet of liberalism and this was central to the flaws of the Enlightenment. It is for this very reason that seventeenth- and eighteenth-century counter-enlightenment philosophers polemicized so heavily against abstract theories of human rights or the idea of the social contract as the basis of society.

What the liberal philosophers of the Enlightenment, especially the eighteenth-century French philosophers sought to do was to rebuild a new society based on ideals. It fundamentally sought to de-root man from the so-called “chains” imposed upon him by created realities. In doing so, they often appealed to nature or man’s supposed state of nature which, according to them, had been corrupted by customs and habits imposed by tradition. It is for this reason that I believe the contemporary Neo-Thomist accusation against Theonomists that we are fundamentally liberal in our anthropology as a result of our skepticism about natural law, holds no water. The fact of the matter is that appeals to nature as justification for egalitarianism and a universal human fraternity was actually quite common during the Enlightenment, particularly in France. This is not to say that natural law theory is liberal in and of itself, but it has certainly historically been much more of a tool employed by liberals than Scripture has, for example.”

The opposite problem of a Gnostic definition of culture that insists that culture is only the sum total of how abstracted individuals think is the assertion that culture has nothing to do with any spiritual reality, insisting instead that culture is merely matter in motion. This materialist Marxist understanding of culture viewed man and cultures as being a biological machine(s) that could be shaped by the party in any direction it desired. In reality Marxism was the anti-culture culture because it was the anti-religion religion. Marxist culture remained the outward manifestation of a people’s inward beliefs but what was manifested in Marxist culture was the Marxist religion that held that man was an economic being that could only be understood in terms of class warfare. Because man in Marxist religion and culture was only matter in motion man became dehumanized and having lost the manishness of man he lost those realities that make men, men; connection to family, clan, nation, church, and place.

Only Christianity can build stable culture because only Christianity has an anthropology that seeks to maintain the relation man as body and man as soul. Christianity then must do battle with the Gnostics in the church that says culture is only the consequence of what men in the abstract think and Christianity must do battle with the Materialists in the church who think that man is merely matter in motion.

What is interesting here is that even though man as material alone or man as spiritual alone are stark opposites in terms of anthropology in the end they both will build cultures that are unitarian and monistic. If man is merely one component then man will build a culture that is monochrome and unitary. So, even though spiritualist views of culture and materialist views of culture are seeming at opposite ends of the spectrum they end up building the same kind of ugly mulatto cultures. This is where we are right now with the rise of multiculturalism – a euphemism if there ever was one.

As a Christian the danger that I am dealing with now the most in the Christian church on this subject is the the Gnostic/spiritual side of the equation. More than a few are the clergy who seemingly believe that the results of Christianity, in terms of culture, will eventually be a world where particular nations disappear because the gospel has been so successful that there is no longer a need for diverse nations or cultures. I call this “Christian Globalism,” and it is more prevalent than one might think. It’s almost as if the only reason diverse nations and cultures exist is because of sin.

From what we have said here we see that the finest culture can only arise where there is a dynamic interplay between Christian thinking and Christian genetic heritage. The fun thing about this is that because God has made peoples to be diverse different peoples, these different peoples when turning to Christ, will result in their thinking their thoughts after Christ, and the result of that will be a plurality of diverse Christian cultures, each and all expressing in ways distinct to their heritage strengths the glory of God. Each and all of these cultures will esteem God’s law but the esteeming of that law will run through the prism of genetic distinctive heritage. In such a way the temporal one and many of culture(s) will reflect the One and Many character of God. With this shared owning of Christ the different distinct and different nations and cultures will together glorify the great and magnificent creator God just as a symphony orchestra with all it diverse instruments work together to produce majestic pieces of music.

Ben Glaser Inspired Gobbledygook Becomes NAPARC Foundation

Three NAPARC Denominations (ARP, RPCNA, PCA) have affirmed the following nitwit statement which originally flowed from the fevered mind of one Rev. Ben Glaser;

“We do on this solemn day condemn without distinction any theological or political teaching which posits a superiority of race or ethnic identity born of immutable human characteristics and does on this solemn evening call to repentance any who promote or associate themselves with such teaching, either by omission or commission.”

1.) Notice it is only “theological or political teaching which posits a superiority of race or ethnic identity born of immutable human characteristics” which is condemned here. I take that to mean that any sociological or anthropological or biological teaching that affirms these truths are acceptable.

2.) In the nurture vs. nature discussion this is a unequivocal denial of nature in favor of nurture as the explanation for the reason that peoples have the inclinations and dispositions that they have. We must conclude therefore this is a clear affirmation supporting Tabula Rasa (Blank slate) theory of the nature of man.

3.) The Scripture itself teaches that races are inferior in certain respects. For example, in Titus St. Paul says that “Cretans are always liars…” If lying is something that is true of Cretans (as St. Paul writes that it is) then that is an inferior trait that is true of Cretans and being inferior in this regard necessitates that those who are not Cretans are superior in this matter. St. Paul, as inspired by the Holy Spirit, is thus found in need of repentance per this Church pronouncement.

4.) Notice that this proclamation teaches that race does exist. Does NAPARC really believe that race exists? I believe that race exists but many in these clown denominations are denying the reality of race.

5.) The Westminster Larger Catechisms spends all kinds of time limning out the roles of inferiors and superiors to one another. This proclamation means that the WLC only applies to individuals and has not corporate application.

6.) This proclamation completely voids all studies that deal with IQ averages across races and ethnicities. This proclamation voids all explanations demonstrating why some athletes from different races are superior to athletes from other races in particular contests.

7.) By bringing the idea of “omission or commission,” a minister is found guilty if he doesn’t go out of his way to publicly agree with this proclamation. Silence on the subject, by a minister, finds him guilty of violating this proclamation.

Doug Wilson Camping On The Holocaust

“Do you believe the Holocaust happened? Are you a Holocaust denier? This is right where this stuff [the woke right stuff] leads.”

Doug Wilson

Does Doug believe that the Bagels had and have a vested interest in exaggerating what’s called the holocaust? Does he believe that the Holocaust conveniently serves the global purposes of those who style themselves to be Bagels? Doesn’t the once recorded and accepted but now dismissed idea of lampshades made of Jewish skin and soap made of Jewish fat indicate that there is reason to continue to ask questions surrounding “the holocaust?” If Lampshades make out of Bagel skin and soap made out of Bagel fat is now seen as ridiculous isn’t it at least possible that the numbers surround the holocaust are also ridiculously inflated?

One wonders if, for Doug, one can question the six million number and not be a holocaust denier? How low of a number of total Jewish deaths can one affirm and still be called a “holocaust denier?” If one affirms, let’s say, three million Jewish deaths is one a holocaust denier at that point? two million? One million?

And one might wonder why Doug focuses in on this holocaust? Why doesn’t the man ever talk about the holodomor where Ukrainian Christians were the target of genocide by the Jewish Bolsheviks, or the Armenian genocide by those claiming to be Turks or the German holocaust recorded in the book by James Bacque titled “Other Losses?”

On top of this we might ask if the Bagels have a history of lying. Did they lie about the USS Liberty? Did they lie in their early claim that Palestine was “a land without a people for a people without a land.” A few decades later did the Bagels lie about their oversight and involvement with the Sabra and Shatila massacre of Palestinian refugees? Did the Bagels lie about the the 1994 blood-shedding of Palestinian worshippers in Hebron’s Ibrahimi Mosque. According to Doug Wilson should we take any stock that the motto of Israel’s Mossad is “by way of deception.” If the Bagels lied about all this why is it not at least possible that they have lied about the 6 million number? Does it matter to Doug Wilson that the Bagels repeatedly prior to WW II insisted repeatedly that six million Bagels were being harrassed, persecuted, and in danger in publication after publication in different circumstances and instances across the world? How much of a pattern does one have to see repeated before it is rational to say … “I wonder if a particular well reported incident is also part of this ‘by way of deception’ pattern?”

Why is it that questioning the facts around death totals during WW II becomes the sine qua non of Wilsonian and neo-con (leftist) orthodoxy?

Further, does Doug think R. J. Rushdoony is “Woke Right” because he questioned the holocaust? Does Doug think David Irving is “Woke Right” because he questioned the holocaust? Does Doug think Michael Hoffman or E. Michael Jones are “Woke Right” just because the ADL says they are?

What does Doug do with Fred Leuchter’s testimony in the Ernst Zundel trial?

Doug Wilson has become a leftist normie.

The CREC is NOT Conservative & Rev. Rich Lusk Proves It

The CREC is chock full of ministers who man the walls of the “conservative” Left. Rich Lusk is one of them. Uri Brieto is another. Doug Wilson is the godfather of the WOKE LITE Left. These chaps, if you recall, were the ones who just a few years ago, led the charge in trying to redefine Reformed theology by giving us the heresy called Federal Vision. Now, they are back at it seeking to implement a kind of Christian Nationalism that is not particularly Christian nor especially concerned with Nationalism. As the old proverb goes these chaps on these subjects are all hat and no cattle.

One of their schticks is to try and gate-keep the Reformed world by thinking they can tell us who among the Reformed can be in the inner circle of the Christian Nationalism movement and who is going to be kicked out. They are the modern day version of Wm. F. Buckley kicking out one person after another (Sobran, Francis, Brimelow, Derbyshire, etc.) from the “Conservative” movement. These chaps of the CREC think they are the sheriffs of the Christian Nationalist movement and that they get to round up anybody who disagrees with them.

Well, I disagree with them. I detest their propositional nationhood type approach. I abhor their Boasian approach to race and nationhood. As such I routinely pray that they will fail and be tossed on the ash-heap of history. I especially don’t want to see their version of Christianity becoming hegemonic since Federal Vision is a return to semi-pelagian non-Reformed theology.

Recently, one of their acolytes, Rich Lusk, has been on the net insisting that certain people get read out of the Christian Nationalist movement. In this brief piece I interact with Lusk a wee bit;

Rich Lusk writes,

1. Whatever shift you think you’ve seen, none of us are multiculturalists or cultural egalitarians. Wilson, myself, and others are still happy to cite Rushdoony, Dabney, etc., when it’s fitting. I don’t subscribe to their infallibility but I do appreciate them. The question is not, “Would Dabney be excommunicated if he were in the church today?,” but, “Would Dabney make the same errors if he were in the church today?” I think Wilson has done a fair job evaluating Dabney.

Bret responds,

A.) Actually, Wilson, Lusk and company are soft multiculturalists. Sure, they aren’t as extreme as the Clergy in the mainline churches but if you compare them to Machen, or Rushdoony, or John Edwards Richards, or Clarence McCartney, or Francis Nigel Lee, or Morton Smith — Reformed theologians only a generation or two removed from Wilson — then the CREC chaps are indeed multiculturalists. It’s not even close. I have the quotes to prove it.

So, the question these blokes present to us is; “Do we want to settle for ceasing the multicultural slide thus sticking with the present status quo or do we really want to reverse and undo what is now known as the Post-War consensus that includes all the advances of the civil rights movement — a movement that was driven by Marxist ideology?” Getting on the CREC wagon means that we codify as normal where we are right now. Sure, it might mean an end to the continuing slide leftward (though I seriously doubt that) but it will do nothing to reverse the hell-ward slide we’ve been on since the 1960s.

B.) When Lusk says that he and his CREC mavens are happy to cite Rushdoony and Dabney when it is fitting he means that the CREC mavens are glad to cite Rush and Dabney when it is convenient. I promise you that both Rush and Dabney would want nothing to do with Wilson, Brieto, Lusk, and the CREC headcases. If Rush could criticize Francis Schaeffer (and he did) then Rush would certainly light out after these compromisers.

Secondly, on this score, keep in mind that Wilson has publicly said that he has no interest in being Rushdoony 2.0 preferring instead to be Rushdoony 0.5. Which being interpreted means that Wilson wants to dilute and water down Rushdoony. It means that he thought Rush was too extreme. Wilson wants to be a kinder and gentler Rushdoony, which means he’s not interested in Rushdoony except for when Wilson can cloak himself in Rush’s mantle.

C.) Note that Luks speaks of Dabney’s errors in the same breath as saying he appreciates Dabney. Lusk does so without saying what errors it is that Dabney would no longer embrace. I guarantee you that if Lusk were to list Dabney’s “errors” that Dabney would no longer embrace a vigorous debate would immediately break out as to whether or not what Lusk says was a Dabney mistake was indeed a Dabney mistake.

D.) The idea that we should take seriously Wilson evaluating Dabney is akin to saying we should take seriously Joel Osteen evaluating John Calvin.

Rich Lusk wrote;

2. A Christian, conservative political agenda can be accomplished without racial identity politics (the successes of the Trump administration are an excellent test case for this).

Bret responds,

First, we are way way too early to talk about the “successes of the Trump Administration as a test case for the CREC’s position on negating multiculturalism.

Second, a conservative political agenda might have been accomplished without racial politics back when Pat Buchanan was running for President but we past that exit long ago. There will be no genuine conservative political agenda accomplished apart from racial realism. This reality is seen by the voting patterns in Presidential elections. To this point only white people are voting in majority for conservative, populist, or nationalist candidates. This has been the case for several Presidential cycles and there is no reason to think this is going to change UNLESS Trump is able to send upwards of 30 million illegals back home while at the same time extremely narrowing the amount of legal immigration.

Rich Lusk wrote,

3. Racial identity politics from the right, including making a big issue of interracial marriage, is bound to lose. If you want to be a martyr for racial identity politics, go ahead. I’d rather win as a Christian – and I do think significant victories are possible if Christians will be wise and vigilant about it. The alt right, or Neo-Nazis, or whatever they should be called, are fools and a distraction from the task at hand.

McAtee responds,

Here we find the proof that the CREC is not serious. Our culture is being bombarded with the New World Order push for interracial marriage. It is being pushed in our advertising world, in our film world, in our television programs, on University campuses and in “conservative” churches and Lusk is saying that resisting this New World Order push for interracial marriage is a loser issue. This is proof that the CREC is multicultural. If they are willing to give up on this issue they have planted their flag on the side of the One Worlder types. This is an example of CREC pragmatism at its worse.

Lusk says he’d rather win as a Christian but I’m here to tell you if Lusk and the CREC wins like this then the Christian faith loses. Lusk wants to lose gracefully and then call that losing, “winning.”

Fools like Lusk from the Lite-left or Neo-Cultural Marxists, or whatever they should be called, are idiots and will only, in the end, at best temporarily slow down but not reverse the slide we are currently experiencing. People need to realize that “Conservative” denominations like the CREC and “Conservative” clergy like Joe Boot, Andrew Sandlin, Rich Lusk, Doug Wilson, Uri Brieto and Peter Leithart are in reality just a variant of what is called “controlled opposition.”

___

Addendum

So similar analysis from Nate Keane;

They live in a complete echo chamber of their own creation. Any of us outside that echo chamber recognizes that a reckoning is coming on these issues, and a tearing down of all the presuppositions and theories that have undergirded the modern egalitarian world. They’re busy saying they’re not woke, while endorsing all of those assumptions. They think that because they can purge dissent in THEIR ranks, that they can stave off the reckoning by just Tabula Rasa-ing harder. That reckoning is coming, the question is Will Christians have a voice in it or not. They’re doing their best to ensure that we don’t. They won’t like what comes next. The lesson they took from WW2 is “we must root out racism and antisemitism” not, “when the magistrate abdicates his duties, you will get an Absalom”.