Repudiating the Ongoing Slander & Libel Against Biblical Kinism

Valerie Bost writes in Support of Fathead Sumpter

I didn’t follow some of the other debates that apparently took place in the FLF group, but my sense of things is that you’re simply following Paul’s instructions to address sin differently in different classes of sinners. Don’t harshly rebuke an older man (1 Tim. 5:1), and be careful about hearing charges against an elder (1 Tim. 5:19). There’s also a difference between dealing with an individual man’s error and dealing with a social contagion error like kinism or CRT. I can’t think of specific Scriptures that address that, but it seems pretty common sensical. In the first instance, you’re going to need focused sniper attention on the man; in the second, a broad-blasting shotgun approach. (Metaphorically speaking. No actual shooting in either case, please. 😉)

Valerie Bost

Dear Valerie;


1.) Many of the Kinists are older men and are Elders. Where is the Pauline approach there?

2.) There is no Church council that has pronounced on Kinism. As such that you could refer to it as a “social contagion” is yet more slander and libel and a sign of “hate in your heart.” Indeed, no one has even dealt with the Kinist arguments yet… unless you consider pointing, spluttering and screeching like a Junior High girl to be a “argument.” There is a whole 600 page anthology out demonstrating the Kinist impulse throughout Western Civilization and Church History and yet the best we get in response to Achord and Dow’s book are stupid statements like… “they were just quote mining.”

3.) At the same time the Apostle’s Creed itself casts out Full Preterism and consequently it is indeed safe to consider it a “social contagion.” The works of Max King, Don Preston, and others demonstrate it is a social contagion. The fact that Full Preterism has bested Reformed men like David Chilton and Gary DeMar demonstrates it is a social contagion. Besides, anybody knows that the way to beat a contagion is by stopping it as soon as possible. DeMar needs to be cast out for advancing Full Preterism. Where are the men dealing with DeMar the way that Paul dealt with Peter as recorded in Galatians? Was Paul guilty of not being careful Valerie?

4.) Now if you desire specific scriptures that support Kinism, I suggest you look at this three part series written by a chap working on his Ph.D at Westminster East;

Returning Fire on Ft. Sumpter

“On the other hand, I do think that Kinism is playing with a species murder – hatred and pride in the heart based on race and ethnicity. And murderers end up in the Lake of Fire. I’m not talking about love of family, love of tradition, love of your home, love of your nation, love of your culture, love of baseball and hotdogs and cold beer – all good and godly things, ordered by God’s Word. If that’s what you’re eager to recover, that’s great, just don’t call yourself a “Kinist” and don’t share White Boy Summer memes like some kind of fathead. To traffic in racialist categories is to take the bait of Critical Race Theory and all its ugly bastard children. You don’t beat Dialectical Materialism with your own materialistic dialectic. You don’t beat feminists by ordaining women to pastoral ministry. You don’t beat fire by pouring gasoline on it….

God requires us to honor our fathers in the faith, and sometimes when our fathers stumble into sin or error, they must be admonished and sometimes we walk backwards into the tent to cover their drunken shame. 

Toby Sumpter

As Possessed by Doug Wilson

So, our enemies think they get to dictate the language? Because Doug and old Toby thinks that we need to quit calling ourselves “Kinists” therefore we should quit calling ourselves “Kinists?”

I have an idea. Why don’t Toby and Doug and Darren and Foster etc. etc. etc. quit calling themselves “Reformed.” I mean these guys are Reformed the way that Michelle Duggar is a “virgin.”

Fathead Sumpter casts aspersions about how Kinists are trading in “Critical Race Theory.” Tell me Old Tobe, are all those quotes in the Achord & Dow book from all those Christian Fathers through the centuries who were clearly kinist as the leading kinists have defined Kinism also guilty of thinking in racialist categories and of having a materialistic dialectic?

Honestly, I don’t think Fathead Sumpter would know a materialistic dialectic if it came up and bit him on his fat head.

But hey… knock yourself out with all your slander and libel Toby boy. I mean, Jesus said that we are to rejoice when we are persecuted for righteousness sake and as Kinists are the ones with a Biblical anthropology and axiology, I’m partying pretty hard right now with all your insults Old Fathead Tobe.

See… I can play that card just as well as you can.

Honestly Doug Jr. (Is it alright to call you Doug Jr. Toby? I mean your writing style makes me think that Dougie is trying to possess you.) do you really think that Kinists are dealing with a species of murder with all the hate and pride in our heart?

Notice again though the seeming assumption on Fathead’s part that all kinists are white. Would Toby really accuse one of our Black or Brown Kinists brothers, who overwhelmingly agree with us on the necessity to prioritize one’s people, of being racialist fatheads who traffic in the hatred and pride that comprise murder?

Honestly, Old Tobey complains in the piece this quote is pulled from about people not excelling at reading comprehension and yet this fathead thinks this is what Kinists believe.

That’s ok… let him continue to try to break records for maxing out the Asperger’s scale. I’m too busy enjoying my latest Boilermaker while watching the classic, “Birth of a Nation.”

Oh… and that bit about honoring our Fathers?

You might want to consider this link Fathead and then ask yourself… how your slander and libel against Kinists and Kinism is honoring our Kinist Christian Fathers in the Faith.

And if after all that, you’ve missed the point let me quote one of your detractors;

“Counter signaling the only socio-political movement that is talking about the blight of white people, all while chanting Christ is King, seems like a smooth brain move.”

So Say We All … A Protest To Dr. Sproul 2.0’s Comments

McAtee Defends Stephen Wolfe Against Ehrett

“It would seem that antique paganism does a better job of underpinning his (Wolfe’s) political theory than does Christianity itself. Considered abstractly, what belief system could better reinforce one’s natural love of home and family and kin than a religion grounded in that natural love, a religion forming overlapping chains of unbroken continuity back through the generations of one’s particular family and polis, a religion with father-rule at its very core? In view of Wolfe’s claim that the Western mind has a “universalizing tendency” which it ought to reject, coupled with the fairly clear historical datum that this ‘universalizing tendency’ has its roots in Christianity, paganism seems to have some crucial advantages here.”

John Ehrett
Critiquing Stephen Wolfe’s book on Nationalism

Now, I’m no fan of Wolfe’s recent book on nationalism and I don’t know John Ehrett from Adam, but this critique by Ehrett is mind-boggling dense.

Ehrett tells us, in this critique that ancient paganism, with its ancestor worship, better reinforced one’s natural love of home, family, and kin because it was a religion grounded in natural love. First, understand that when paganism had this kind of religion the natural love that Ehrett speaks of instantly became natural love in service of idolatry. The ancient pagans who worshiped the family were guilty of familolatry. As such, whatever natural love that was present in the end was not love at all. Any love that is owned that does not find its meaning in love for God and in submission to God is no love at all. Because the kind of pagans the Ehrett speaks of practiced familolatry therefore it was not possible for pagan religion to be superior to Christianity when it came to love of kith, kin, and place. Second, is Ehrett not familiar with some of the kinds of antique paganism who had this superior natural love for family above that of Christianity? Is Ehrett not familiar that many indigenous peoples across Mesoamerica had altars in their houses or patios and these were used, in part, to communicate with the ancestors? Is this the kind of superiority over Christianity in the matter of kith, kin, and place, that Ehrett speaks of? Has Ehrett ever considered the Mexican holiday of the “Day of the Dead” which stretches back centuries and which is closely connected to the pagan respect for kith, kin, and place? Does he really want to argue that the Day of the Dead is superior to Wolfe’s proper insistence that Christianity is a religion that is better at reinforcing love for kith, kin, and family than paganism?

In making this critique I have to wonder if Ehrett has ever heard of covenant theology with its promise from God that “I will be your God and you shall be my people?” Does Ehrett realize that the Scriptures are all about Father rule so that Christians are constantly accused of that dreaded thing called patriarchy? Has Ehrett ever considered the idea of a promised land. Has Ehrett Revelation 21 where the Nations as Nations are filing into the New Jerusalem? How about Micah 4 or Isaiah 2 where all the nations as nations are streaming to the Mountain of the Lord?

Is Ehrett actually arguing that Paganism gives a better foundation for the idea of family, polis, place, and Father rule than Christianity?

As to the matter of Ehrett’s support for what he believes is Christianity’s “universalizing tendency,” let us keep in mind that a “universalizing tendency” can come in a couple of varieties. The first variety seems to be what Ehrett is pushing. It is the variety that has Christianity working to be a faith that he imagines results in no countries and where all colors bleed into one. This kind of Christianity that Ehrett envisions is one where the universalizing tendency has swallowed whole the particularity that Christianity also embraces with its doctrine of “The One and the Many.” The second variety of a Christianity with a healthy “universalizing tendency” is the kind of universalizing tendency that bespeaks confederation. This kind of universalizing tendency allows for unity in the faith while embracing particularity in peoples and places. This kind of Christian universalizing tendency allows for every tribe, tongue and nation, in their tribes, tongues, and nations, to come around the throne of the lamb to give glory and honor and praise.

Christianity has through the centuries embraced both the idea of a universalizing tendency and of a particularizing tendency when it comes to peoples. Listen to Charles Hodge on the particularizing tendency of Christianity;

“It is moreover a historical fact universally admitted, that character, within certain limits is transmissible from parents to children. Every nation, separate tribe, and even every extended family of men, has its physical, mental, social, and moral peculiarities which are propagated from generation to generation. No process of discipline of culture can transmute a Tartar into a Englishman, or an Irishman into a Frenchman. The Bourbons, the Hapsburgs, and other historical families, have retained and transmitted their peculiarities for ages. We may be unable to explain thus, but we cannot deny it. No one is born an absolute man, with nothing but generic humanity belonging to him. Everyone is born a man a man in a definite state, with all those characteristics physical, mental, and moral, which make up his individuality. There is nothing therefore in the doctrine of hereditary depravity out of analogy within providential facts.”

Charles Hodge

Systematic Theology

And listen to Abraham Kuyper on how particularity can exist within the universal;

“The Javanese are a different race than us; they live in a different region; they stand on a wholly different level of development; they are created differently in their inner life; they have a wholly different past behind them; and they have grown up in wholly different ideas. To expect of them that they should find the fitting expression of their faith in our Confession and in our Catechism is therefore absurd.

Now this is not something special for the Javanese, but stems from a general rule. The men are not all alike among whom the Church occurs. They differ according to origin, race, country, region, history, construction, mood and soul, and they do not always remain the same, but undergo various stages of development. Now the Gospel will not objectively remain outside their reach, but subjectively be appropriated by them, and the fruit thereof will come to confession and expression, the result may not be the same for all nations and times. The objective truth remains the same, but the matter in appropriation, application and confession must be different, as the color of the light varies according to the glass in which it is collected. He who has traveled and came into contact with Christians in different parts of the world of distinct races, countries and traditions cannot be blind for the sober fact of this reality. It is evident to him. He observes it everywhere.”……

Abraham Kuyper:
Common Grace (1902–1905)

And so, we must conclude that this critique of Ehrett’s insisting on the idea that Christianity is a faith that levels all previous cultural distinctions so that men from different cultures and races, once becoming Christian can all live in harmony in the same social order just because they are all Christian is just not accurate.


McAtee Takes On The Editor of the Babylon Bee

“Unpopular take: mass immigration could save this country. They are hard-working mostly Christian/Catholic people coming in. The Democrats want to immediately hook them on welfare and turn them into a permanent underclass voting bloc. We could prevent that by assimilating them.

It’s a fact that first-generation Americans are more hard-working, more appreciative of America’s blessings, and more likely to have traditional families. The democrats want to bring these people in, keep them poor, and destroy their culture, just like they did to black Americans.

They’re doing that anyway right now. Maybe it’s time for Conservatives to start thinking about a realistic plan for amnesty, assimilation, and welcoming these folks as American citizens before the Democrats can destroy these people.

These people coming in are culturally conservative. Who knows–they just might save our culture.”

Joel Berry
The Babylon Bee — Managing editor

Now, before we dissect this we have to keep in mind that “The Babylon Bee” is a publication dedicated to satire. As such it may be that Joel was being satirical here on his twitter account. If he was he outdid himself in terms of the use of sarcasm’s caustic wit in the service of attacking and exposing human foolishness. The fact that anybody could seriously believe the above quote might be the epitome of human foolishness.

However, we are going to treat this vapid and jejune quote as Joel being serious. In doing so, we would say that the first thing this torpid sentiment establishes is that conservatism is dead. Berry and the Babylon Bee sells itself as a conservative publication but this tidbit of wisdom (that’s satire) proves that conservatives means only slightly less liberal and even sometimes slightly more liberal. When someone tells me “I am conservative” my response any more is, “I am sorry to hear that. There are remedies for that you know.” We are far from the conservatism of Burke or de Maistre or even the later conservatism of Hamilton Fish III, John T. Flynn, or Lindbergh. Indeed being genuinely conservative today is like being a genuine unicorn. So, again, I would say Berry’s quote is one more piece of evidence that claiming to be conservative today means only that if Walter Mondale were running for President today the modern conservative would vote for him. Berry is conservative the way that Stalin was a moderate.

In terms of the text itself, first, Berry offers that he is going to give a “unpopular take.” Unpopular take? Is that why we are gathering record numbers of “undocumented workers” at the border? Is it because immigrants are unpopular that some put the number of illegals here at 30 million? Is Berry’s view being unpopular seen by the disappearance of any notion of border? Is Berry’s view being unpopular seen by the constant idiot cant coming from pulpits across America on the virtues of untrammeled immigration? Saying that his view is unpopular is like a teenager saying that the Homecoming Queen is hated by everybody.

Next Berry offers that “mass immigration could save this country.” I can only offer that if mass immigration saves this country then the country that is saved is not the one that needed saving before the mass immigration began. Is Berry thinking that the third world immigration is going to save us the same way the immigration of the Goths, Visigoths, and Ostrogoths saved Rome? This is just ignorance on stilts. If the immigrants had the capacity to save this country would they not have been the grist by which the countries they are fleeing from would have been saved? Their home countries they could not save but America the can save?

Next the genius from the “Bee” writes of this immigrant horde descending upon us that, “they are hard-working mostly Christian/Catholic people coming in.” I would encourage Mr. Berry to read Ann Coulter’s “Adios America” for another opinion on this matter. Secondly, how can Mr. Berry possibly know this? Do he take a poll of the people coming in? Did he talk to the MS-13 gang members slipping in? Thirdly, since when did Protestants (Mr. Berry is Baptist) equate Roman Catholic with being Christian?  Fourthly, I can’t help but wonder if Mr. Berry has even examined Central American Christianity/Catholicism, mixed as it typically is with syncretism and expressive more often than not of some form of Liberation Theology? Now, this might not be a problem since America is no longer a Christian nation in any significant sense. I would go so far as to say that if these immigrants were indeed Christian or even faithful Catholics that there is no way in Hades that our elite would be allowing them to pour in like water through ever possible crevice. Mr. Berry perhaps reaches the very apex of his ignorance with this sentiment.

Berry actually gets it right with his next pearl of wisdom. The Democrats do want the immigrants in, in order to hook them on welfare so as to be a permanent underclass. However, Berry (who I would guess is Republican) fails to tell us is that Republicans also desire the immigrants to pour in, so that there is a ready pool of cheap labor to work in Mega-Corporate organizations. Also, were these people as hard-working as Mr. Berry asserted would not these hard-working people eschew welfare? Secondly, on this score, does Mr. Berry recognize that all these immigrants he wants to allow in are already ripping asunder the welfare safety net? There will be no welfare to get hooked on should the immigrants keep coming. Actually, that might be good news because once the hammock is torn asunder the immigration will cease.

The last phrase of Berry’s first paragraph above is perhaps the grandest knee-slapper of them all. Berry proposes assimilating these foreigners, strangers, and aliens. Has Berry never heard of Putnam’s “Bowling Alone?” Putnam decidedly demonstrates that foreigners don’t assimilate but instead when people of different ethnicities are thrown, cheek by jowl, next to each other the result is balkanization and a refusal to interact. There will be very little assimilating and what assimilation that happens will result in heartache for both cultures/ethnicities that end up assimilating.

Under the banner of conservatism, Berry has proposed every New World Order aficionado’s  wet dream. Keep in mind that the cry of “assimilation” is merely the cry for the white man being replaced. Berry’s conservatism is in support of the replacement theory which intends to breed the white man into numerical diminution.

In the second paragraph of the quote above, Berry presses on to reveal his abject stupidity. Berry talks about “it’s a fact.” How does Berry know this? Has Berry investigated the track record of the “South of the Border” influx to determine that immigrants “are more hard-working, more appreciative of America’s blessings, and more likely to have traditional families.” That might have been true once upon a time with earlier European immigrations, but so far as I know there are no statistical analysis of the first generation third worlders that have come since Ronald Reagan’s first amnesty program. Having said this, I quite agree that Americans, generally speaking, do not know what it means to work hard, are not appreciative of America’s blessings, and no longer have traditional families. Indeed, I would even contend that Mr. Berry is an example of that. If the man was more appreciative of America’s blessings he would not be advocating third-worldizing America by means of bringing in the third world to populate America.

Now we turn briefly to Berry’s third paragraph above. Maybe it is time for Mr. Berry to realize that these people have already been destroyed as seen by the countries they are coming from and that the only end for amnesty and assimilation is the destruction of what little is left of traditional America. Now, just to cover myself, I have no doubt that there are third-worlders who could be fine upstanding Americans. However, generally speaking I agree with former President Trump who wondered  why America would want immigrants from “all these shithole countries” and that the U.S. should have more people coming in from places like Norway.

Mark my word, the immigrants will eventually be given amnesty — either in a dejure or the current defacto sense and the result will be the morphing of this country into a “shithole country.” We are already seeing this transformation in our major cities in America. The damage has already set in and the fact that “thought leaders” like Berry can’t see it is the stuff upon with satire feasts.

Kinism and the Disappearance of the Christian God

Once man displaces God, whether in a defacto sense or a dejure sense, man displaces at the same time all things higher than himself as man becomes himself god. The absence of God brings with it the absence of all other higher hierarchies. So, when we see evidence that man is displacing all things higher than himself we know that man has already displaced God as sovereign. The eclipse of God is a leveling event followed by an inevitable move towards egalitarianism.

And here we find the nub of the Kinist’s contention with the modern churchmen. When the Kinist sees man denying the higher than himself thing called race, the higher than himself thing called distinctly Western culture and civilization, the higher thing than himself called our patrimony, the higher thing than himself called nation, we as Kinists see behind all of that that a prior denial of God Himself since the denial of all things higher like race, culture, patrimony and nation is but the consequent of or anticipation of the denial of God Himself.

Similarly, when God as the transcendent other is denied or eclipsed or suppressed the category of “transcendent” doesn’t go away. Instead what fills the category of “transcendent” is some immanent transcendent that partakes of the “otherness” that fallen man has denied or suppressed by denying or suppressing the reality of God. The most common candidate for us today in finding a immanent transcendent that partakes of the quality of “otherness” is alien races, cultures, and faiths. This explains multiculturalism.

In multiculturalism the otherness of the stranger and the alien is invested with transcendence since modern man in denying or suppressing God no longer has a transcendent transcendence in his life. The other cultures/races/faiths becomes the new immanent transcendent and is worshiped as such. That which previously partook of the transcendent God in terms of race/culture/faith is thus likewise increasingly hated as it reminds us too much of the God that we can’t escape. As such white Western Christian culture and civilization is hated and found wanting at every turn while races/cultures/faiths that are foreign and alien to the God that is denied and suppressed becomes the immanent transcendent other that we desperately need in order to provide the necessary sense of “otherness” having rid ourselves of God’s transcendent transcendence.

And so the formerly Christian white man having as his inheritance the Christian faith and Christian culture, in an act of ethnocide, immolates himself on the altar of the non-white, non-Christian, non-civilized man in order to continue apace his hatred of Christ.

We note this especially about the White European descendent since it is the white European descendent that is most closely associated with the God of the Bible who is the explanation of all that was healthy about Christian Western civilization. We have no doubt that this could also be true in many respects for Christians who embraced Biblical Christianity as coming from other races/ethnicities.

This provides in part an explanation for the appeal of multiculturalism.