Ethnic considerations

Top Three Defining Beliefs Of A Kinist … Of Kinism

What would you say are the top 3 defining beliefs of a “Kinist?” Could you briefly expand on each of those points for me? How specifically, or how actionably?

Scott Tungay

Hello Scott,

I think that Kinists would agree with me in saying that our top three defining beliefs are;

1.) Love for God

Specifically and actionably this means that Kinists believe that they have the privilege and responsibility to be part of Biblical churches where the God of the Bible is worshiped by means of Word and Sacrament. Further, it means that they have their shoulders to the wheel in advancing the Kingdom of God and His Christ. The Kinist love for God means that there is no cordoning off a common realm from a grace realm wherein God is less interested in the common realm or wherein God rules the common realm in a less explicit manner. The Kinist love for God means an understanding that all of Christ is for all of life. The Kinist love for God means all that the Kinist does is sub species aeternitatis (“from the perspective of the eternal”) and as such is done for God’s pleasure.

The love for God actionably means doing what we can to make sure a Biblical Church is present so that the family can worship together and together grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.

The love for God actionably means helping those in the community of faith who are in need as we can. The love for God means visiting the widow and orphan in their distress.

2.) Love for their Kith and Kin

Specifically and actionably this means that Kinists seek to honor God’s command to “Honor their Father’s and Mothers,” understanding that this commandment extends to generations past and anticipates generations yet to come. In loving our Kith and Kin we thereby also demonstrate our love to God (see #1 above). Love for Kith and Kin extends outwardly in concentric circles to those most intimately connected to us in our families. This is commonly called the ordo amoris. We prioritize our immediate family first, and then from their our love extends to the extended (Trustee) family and from there to those who belong to our ethnicity/race. This prioritizing of love for Kith and Kin is explicitly required of God’s people as seen in I Timothy 5:8. Those who object to this and who insist that we must love all people equally (the same) are living in defiance of God’s explicit instructions. This special love for Kith and Kin is seen most clearly in the actions of our Savior, who, while on the cross, makes provision for his own mother.

Actionably, this means storing up an inheritance for our children and grandchildren (Proverbs 13:22 — A good man leaves an inheritance to his children’s children …). Actionably it means taking care of our aged relatives as we can when they are in their dotage. Actionably it means that we do what we can to make sure that our adult children don’t have to launch into their beginning years with untold debt. Actionably it means that we do what we can to train our children to be adults so when they become adults they are not starting out without skills that translate into providing for and maintaining a home. Actionably, it means that we do what we can that our children choose wisely in marriage partners and if possible don’t move hundreds or thousands of miles away. Actionably, it means training our children to think like a Christian. We train them in worldview thinking so that they understand the difference between the way the heathen think and the way a Christian thinks. We train them in their undoubted catholic Christian faith teaching them the Bible, the catechism, and the Confessions. Be trained they can think through a brick wall and will not be fooled by the zeitgeist and are equipped themselves to train their children in the same way.

3.) Love of place

Specifically and actionably this means putting down roots. In our mobile and cosmopolitan times this is perhaps the most difficult to accomplish but it still should be our goal. We should see ourselves as belonging to a place as it belongs to us. This implies doing what we can to build community. The idea of community and place cannot be divorced from one another. This means knowing other families generationally as those families share our same place. This means, as possible, buying locally and supporting local businesses.

The Eventual Breakup Of These US & Europe

America’s population is northwards of 347 million people now. There are those who contend that approximately 30 million of those are illegal aliens — criminals.

This presents the question of “what unites us together as a cohesive nation?” The premise is that a nation, like a family, must have common ground in order to function coherently. Without common ground a nation, like a family, will disintegrate over time. So, given our ever increasing multicultural status as a nation what are the dynamics that make us, as a many peoples, one people?

It strikes me that there can only be three answers to that question for any nation. Those three options are;

1.) Force / Totalitarianism
2.) Economic Prosperity
3.) Shared Race & Religion

When we consider the force / totalitarian option were are presented with the idea of “Empire.” Empires are kept together by a strong centralized and authoritarian political structure. Here we could remember examples like the former USSR, or the US immediately after the war of Northern Aggression. These Empires (USSR externally among many countries and the USA internally in the one nation) were kept together by the bayonet. Nations which are kept together by Force / Totalitarianism need and have large control mechanisms (Secret police) in order to immediately squash any movement by any subversive groups that might unravel the whole. Again we are reminded of the work of the Cheka/KGB in the former USSR and the Freedman’s Bureau as it existed in the conquered Southern States, post “War Against the Constitution.”

People’s living in and sharing the same “nation” may hate one another but if enough force is applied from a centralized source they can be stitched together for a period of time. Eventually though, Empires cannot sustain the amount of resources they need in order to continue their top down existence and they either implode or explode.

The second source of uniting a nation is Economic prosperity. This falls under the old proverb that all boats rise with a rising tide. When there is abundance among a nation that nation can rise above the inherent disagreements that exist as a result of being so fractured in their population base. I believe this is the explanation for why the US has been able to sustain its multicultural existence for the last few decades now. As racial/ethnic and religious homogeneity has decreased in the last three decades or so it is the fact of comparative economic prosperity that has kept us from disintegrating. This has been combined with ever increasing totalitarianism from Washington DC with its ever burgeoning surveillance society so that currently the reality that is keeping the US from flying apart in secession movements or general various geographic anarchies is comparative economic prosperity combined with the aforementioned totalitarianism.

However, Economic prosperity cannot last forever and eventually totalitarianism fails and at that point unless a nation exists as a nation because of a shared race/ethnicity and a shared religion the nation will not continue to be able to cohere as a nation and political division will result. This is what happened with the fall of the USSR. Economically, the USSR could not continue and as their never was any shared religion/race among the various countries that comprised that Empire the USSR disintegrated. This is what happened when the British lost their Empire under the rule of Churchill. England lost its ability to project power across its previous Empire and in light of its Economic loss in light of its diminishment in WW II its Empire began to melt away. In both cases there was nothing else to hold the people together and now England faces internally what it faced externally at the close of WW II. Because England has allowed itself to be swamped with immigrants from third world origins England is in danger of decided civil unrest. It already is increasing its totalitarian muscle in order to keep its population “united.”

That brings us back to the US. The US in my lifetime was at one point 89% White and Christian. That provided a religious and racial/ethnic base in order to provide a cohesiveness that could rise above national stress and strain. It was this common thread that brought us through two World Wars and a great Depression. It was this common thread that found us continuing during the Draft riots and the Political upheaval of Watergate. Because we were a people with a majority religion and race / ethnicity there were common bonds that could compel us to stay together despite pressures to separate politically.

The fact that shared race / ethnicity alone can’t keep a people together is seen by referencing again our own War Between the States. Despite the fact that we were largely one people racially, the differences at that time in the religion that was animating North (Transcendentalism-Romanticism) and South (Christianity) were so great that the previous common ground could not survive. Shared race alone without a shared religion cannot keep a people together once pressures descend.

The same is true in the other direction. Shared religion alone can’t keep a people together where there isn’t a shared racial/ethnic reality. One has only to think of the division between blacks and whites in America who both boast of large “Christian” communities within their people groups and yet the divisions between black and white Christians over various issues in the US is well known. The conflict between Christian Serbs and Croats after the fall of Yugoslavia serves as another example of how a shared faith (Christianity) cannot by itself unite a people even when there is strong racial (Slavic) affinities.

All this brings us to the eventual breakup of the US and even of Europe. With the New World Order rearranging of the World via mass immigration the West is no longer the West. Europe and the US had been largely White and Christian until the latter part of the 20th century and beginning of the 21st century. However, both the Christian base (even nominally considered) and the racial/ethnic base has been deteriorated and the result is that we have nothing intrinsic that can hold us together as nations and this means that once totalitarian efforts are exhausted (and they always exhaust themselves eventually) the eventual course for the US will be the break-up of these once united States. Serious secession movements will arise in the next quarter of a century or so in the US unless something drastically changes in order to restore our religious and racial/ethnic homogeneity.

Before the breakup there may be efforts to pin together the country by force. Total control, with the advent of technology, is getting easier and easier but the centripetal forces are equally strong. Good economic times may also forestall the inevitable but good economic times do not last forever. Eventually, because of how the New World Order has been able to rearrange population centers the US will break apart as a nation.

In Defense of Xenophobia and Racism As American Traits

“I know that it is red meat for his (my opponents) base that are xenophobic and racist to say to them that I am (he is) going to find a way to arrest and deport a member of Congress (Illhan Omar) who he thinks is doing something wrong when I am doing the right thing in trying to make sure everybody that is within my constituency has the resources and the information that they need.”

Illhan Omar
Somali Congress-Critter — Dem. Mn.
CNN Interview

As what is now called a “heritage American” I can not see the problem in being xenophobic or racist, given the fact that Christian Americans were for centuries xenophobic and racist.

Consider the xenophobic and racist nature of our own US Constitution where it was written;

“We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”

Keep in mind that both those who offered up this Constitution as well as those who later ratified this Constitution were all, without exception, White Europeans who were shaped by Christian categories. By the standards of Congress-critter Illhan Omar they were each and all xenophobic and racist. That was demonstrated again in 1790 the Naturalization Act which gave the US the first uniform rule for the granting of US citzenship. It read;

“That any Alien being a free white person, who shall have resided within the limits and under the jurisdiction of the United States for the term of two years, may be admitted to become a citizen thereof …”

In addition to the above the US Courts linked whiteness with Christianity thus excluding Muslim immigrants from US citizenship until 1944 with the SCOTUS decision of Ex Parte Mohriez. Given that reality then by the standards of Mooselimb Congress-Critter Illhan Omar all Americans were racist and xenophobic until 1944.

President Calvin Coolidge, by the standards of Illhan Omar was a xenophobe and racist. No big deal.

“There are racial considerations too grave to be brushed aside for any sentimental reasons. Biological laws tell us that certain divergent people will not mix or blend. The Nordics propagate themselves successfully. With other races, the outcome shows deterioration on both sides. Quality of mind and body suggests that observance of ethnic law is as great a necessity to a nation as immigration law.”

President Calvin Coolidge

The Great Emancipator himself, Abraham Lincoln, by Illhan Omar’s standard would be a xenophobe and racist;

“I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races, [applause]-that I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race.”

Abraham Lincoln
Lincoln vs. Douglas Debate

Many more quotes from famous Americans could be reproduced with all of them suggesting that there is nothing ignoble about an American being a xenophobe or racist. Indeed, an argument could be made that part of what being a heritage American is, is being xenophobic and racist. Now of course xenophobe is a bit of a misnomer since no heritage American is afraid of the foreigner and the alien. Instead they are merely convinced that just as Japan should be for the Japanese and/or China should be for the Chinese it is the historic position, until the last 60 years or so, that America should be for the White European Christian. This is what our forefathers thought and this is what many contemporary Americans think and the only shame in such a position is the shame that comes from the race Marxists forever bleating that some people might well resist their agenda.

We should also say that, historically thinking, Americans have been broad-minded enough to allow a small percentage of non-Americans to live in our midst. However, at this point in our history, with the clear agenda present to diminish and even replace the white population in America what is required is a return to a 1924 type immigration act in order to keep America American.

A Quote On Kinism From The Legendary Lutheran, Walter Maier

Recently the Lutheran church, Missouri Synod, under the “leadership” of one Matthew Harrison has begun to reveal a decline that has doubtless been long in the making. As in so many denominations the Missouri Synod has been afflicted with creeping Marxism. One of the issues that has come to the fore in the denomination is some variant of Kinism. Kinists have been routed out of the denomination with the wildest controversies coming to the fore. All of this is a small part of the rise of Corey Mahler and his controversial Stone Choir podcasts.

In light of all that I thought a quote from the legendary Lutheran, Walter Maier would be of interest. It is clear from this paragraph that the Lutheranism of Matthew Harrison (who has mixed race grandchildren) would not allow Walter Maier to be ordained in the Lutheran – Missouri Synod denomination.

After a paragraph long description of the marriage of a (white) Seattle girl to the Maharajah of Indore complete with a description of the steps she went through in order to convert to Hinduism, old Lutheran stalwart Walter Maier (1893-1950) wrote in his book “For Better, Not For Worse;

“Such interracial misalliances stand condemned before the forum of all clear thinking people. We agree with the verdict of Dr. Eliot, former president of Harvard;

‘Intermarriage between members of races that are not kindred is generally condemned by medical, sanitary, and eugenic authorities; so that the right policy in nations which include many different races is not fusion or blending or amalgamation, but a separate, parallel development of each race, acting in concord with the other races, but each preserving through many generations its own bodily and mental characteristics.

As evident as these principles are, however, we cannot be unmindful of recent efforts to overstep racial bounds. We believe that the Commission on Church and Racial relationships, maintained by the Federal Council of Churches of Christ in America, has on occasion gone out of its way to encourage interracial marriages. This may be seen from statement in Information Service (published by the Department of Research and Education of the Federal Council of Churches of Christ in America) of November 13, 1926. Referring to the widely heralded Olivet Conference of that year, which was devoted ‘largely to the relation of Negroes and whites,’ this bulletin asserted; ‘Dr. George Haynes of the Federal Council presented the problem and illuminated with his very extensive knowledge every discussion of the week…. Nor was the question of intermarriage evaded. That was considered at length. It was felt that some pioneer spirits should take advanced steps in that direction…. After the discussion on intermarriage the group concluded that, if the individuals concerned fully realize the difficulties involved, mixed marriages may be highly desirable.’

In the furtherance of its own program, Communism has ardently encouraged interracial marriages; and this enthusiasm has colored the preaching and practice at some of our radical youth gatherings. For instance, an eye and ear witness at the American Youth Congress at Detroit brings this picture of the social mixing: ‘I cannot refrain from saying, simply and positively, that the most shocking thing I saw in connection with the Detroit Youth Conference was the social mixing of boy and girls of the black and white races…. While Clarence Hathaway expounded the doctrine of Communism, not three seats removed from me a white girl clung to the arm of, and openly petted with, one of the blackest sons of Africa I have ever sen. This was not an isolated circumstance.’

University lectures, with a flare for this new enlightenment, have based their advocacy on Negro and Caucasian marriages on the theory that the strains of negroid blood wills strengthen the white race. But these social revolutionaries will never be able to remove the insurmountable difficulties that are created by these interracial alliances. What of the children? What of the social restrictions?

This is yet another example of thousands of quotes from our Church fathers that demonstrate that Kinism was the assumed position of the Church until the civil rights revolution. Of course all of this was percolating before as the quote above demonstrates but the real rush of Matthew Harrison type thinking began in earnest somewhat after WW II.

Can it really be the case that all our fathers were wrong on this subject and that we are now reduced to having to believe the low intellects like Matthew Harrison and other ecclesiastical Alienists? Has truth changed from one generation to another?

On Those Reputed To Be Jews

“The Six Million constitute a lay religion with its own dogma, commandments, decrees, prophets, high priests and Saints: Saint Anne (Frank), Saint Simon (Wiesenthal), Saint Elie (Wiesel). It has its holy places, its rituals and its pilgrimages. It has its temples and its relics (bars of soap, piles of shoes, etc.), its martyrs, heroes, miracles and miraculous survivors (millions of them), its golden legend and its righteous people. Auschwitz is its Golgotha, Hitler is its Satan. It dictates its law to the nations. Its heart beats in Jerusalem, at the Yad Veshem monument … Although it is largely an avatar of the Hebraic religion, the new religion is quite recent and has exhibited meteoric growth … Paradoxically, the only religion to prosper today is the “Holocaust” religion, ruling, so to speak, supreme and having those sceptics who are openly active cast out from the rest of mankind: it labels them “deniers,” whilst they call themselves “revisionists.”

Robert Faurisson

Former French Professor of Literature at Lyon University
Statement regarding the religious implications of the Holocaust narrativeNow, immediately there will be those who will scream that Faurisson was a holocaust denier. This in spite of the fact that the uber-Leftist Jewish Academic Noam Chomsky once wrote; “I see no anti-Semitic implications in denial of the existence of gas chambers, or even denial of the Holocaust…I see no hint of anti-Semitic implications in Faurisson’s work.” One should also note that if even Auschwitz in the early 90s had to revise their originally grossly inflated death count total down from four million. The Chicago Tribune reported in 1992;

“Jewish and Polish scholars of the Holocaust now agree that the Auschwitz death toll was less than half the four million cited here for four decades. The actual number was probably between 1.1 million and 1.5 million-and at least 90 percent of the victims were Jews.”

It would seem to be reasonable to believe, that in light of this gross overestimation (a gross overestimation that lasted for almost 50 years) of death totals in Auschwitz that it is likely the case that gross overestimations were made in the numbers reported from other camps. The idea that the numbers were routinely grossly inflated has been reported not only by Faurisson but also by others such as David Irving and Ernst Zundel.

I, myself, do not have a concrete opinion on the matter of total deaths suffered by those reputed to be Jewish though I can easily see how it serves as an advantage for those reputed to be Jewish to continue to cling to these numbers. While, I do not have an established opinion on the total death toll on those reputed to be Jewish I do find it curious that so much is made of this death toll in comparison to the horrendous death toll of other tribal communities that receive comparatively little attention. For example, there was a horrendous holocaust of Christian Ukranians by Jewish Bolsheviks under Stalin. Also, there was a horrendous holocaust of Christian Armenians by the Dönme (Jewish) “Muslim” Turks (members of the Sabbatai Zevi cult). We should also mention that holocaust of over 1 million German “disarmed enemy forces” (nomenclature used to skirt the Geneva Convention treatment requirement for POWs) inflicted by the Allies upon surrendering German troops after WW II, the holocaust visited upon the Khmer people by the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia in the late 1970s, and the holocausts of Mao visited upon the Chinese in both his “great leap forward,” and during the later “cultural revolution.” Indeed, the 20th century could be labeled as the “Holocaust century” — especially were we to add the holocaust of the unborn.

And yet I’d be willing to bet the farm that 9 out of 10 Americans have heard only of the Holocaust visited upon those reputed to be Jews. One is left asking… “Why is that?” A cynic might say that the answer presents itself when one notices what people group it is that has been the guiding light of the Western media / Hollywood since its inception. Those who own the news/entertainment report the news.

Those reputed to be Jews have gotten a good deal of mileage out of their unique ownership of the trademarked word “Holocaust.” They have been able to play the global victim due to their trademark ownership. This is an insurmountable advantage when living in a WOKE global philosophy that prioritizes the oppressed victim over and above the evil oppressor class. Those reputed to be Jews have, because of their holocausted status, have become the greatest victims of them all. In the game of Cultural Marxist poker, where he who is the greatest victim hold the greatest hand, the reputed Jews who were holocausted hold the royal flush against all competing victimhood hands. The reputed Jews who were holocausted are the trump that trumps all trump. Nobody can out victim them.

Their victimhood card was played again just a couple days ago when their Prime minister Netanyahu, invoking the holocaust, said;

“No Nation Came to the Aid of Jews During the Holocaust.”

I think all those boys who died on the beaches of Normandy might argue otherwise.

But, all argumentation is irrelevant. When you hold the royal flush of victimhood nothing else matters, and that was the card, Netanyahu played when he said that.

This returns us thus to the opening Farisson quote. The Holocaust has been turned into a religion. Some wags have taken to calling it “Holocaustianity.” Farisson fails to mention above that Holocaustianity also has its own unique Messiah and the Messiah of Holocaustianity are those who we routinely call “Jews.” They are their own saviors, and one of the means of saving themselves is this new religion wherein all have to bow before their very real tragic history, being required at the same time to ignore the very real tragic history of many other groups who have experienced attempted genocide. If other peoples are to be sympathized with then the sympathy with which those reputed to be Jews are sympathized with becomes diluted and reduced in its guilt invoking power.

Another advantage of Holocaustianity is that serves as a “get out of jail free” card. Any behavior by those reputed to be Jews can be overlooked because, “after all they are the greatest victims of all time.” Whether it is the Deir Yassin massacre, or the sinking of the USS Liberty, or the bombing of the King David Motel, or the ethnic cleansing of Christian Palestinians, it can all be washed away because “we were holocausted.”

Even if Faurisson was wrong about holocaust death totals, the point he makes about the creation of a new religion is spot on. That Faurisson is accurate on this point is seen by that Lawmakers in several U.S. states have recently pushed for laws defining antisemitism so as to censor wrong-speak. One sees the problem here when one considers that there has been no push for laws defining anti-Christian speech so as to censor wrong-speak against Christians. I would submit this is an example of holocaustianity at work. Especially, when living in a climate where antisemitism is defined as disagreeing with someone reputed to be Jewish.

These kinds of things need to be said with the coming of Trump. Trump has surrounded himself with Zionists (Hegseth, Stefanik, Huckabee to name just a few) and Trump has been labeled by Netanyahu as “the greatest friend Israel as ever had in the White House.” Radio Personality Mark Levin recently introduced Trump as “Our First Jewish President.” In light of all this voices need to be raised warning, (paraphrasing Pat Buchanan here) about the continued increasing Israeli occupation of America.

I shouldn’t need the tag that finds me saying, “I am not pro-Arab or pro-Muslim.” I am not even “anti-those reputed to be Jews.” I am merely pro Christian and I don’t think that anybody but Christians should have special protection in a nation that was established on Christian principles and I am against politically correct poker.