Ethnic considerations – Page 2

Johannes Althusius On Kinism

Kinism was endorsed by the founder of the Dutch Reformed Church, Johannes Althusius:

“There are two kinds of private and natural domestic association. The first is conjugal (conjugalis) and the second is kinship (propinqua). p. 29. Rights communicated among persons who are united in this natural association are called rights of blood (jura sanguinis) bringing together and sustaining advantages mutually among the kinsmen. Such advantages are, first, the affection, love, and goodwill of the blood relative and kinsman. Advantages and responsibilities are intensified as the degree of relationship among the kinsmen increases. Certain political writers eliminate, wrongly in my judgment, the doctrine of conjugal and kinship private association from the field of politics. These associations are the seedbed of all private and public associational life. The knowledge of other associations is therefore incomplete and defective without this doctrine of conjugal and kinship associations, and cannot be rightly understood without it.”

Johannes Althusius
‘Politica’ – pp. 30-1.

Instant Forgiveness In the Face of Violent Crime & The Color of Crime; The Texas Case

Recently, with the murder of a 17 year old white male in Texas by a black teenage assailant the issue of forgiveness has become a subject of conversations among folks. The Father of the boy murdered, shortly after the murder, went public with his announcement that he had forgiven the black murderer of his son.

In a later interview with Laura Ingram the father in question somewhat clarified his earlier blanket forgiveness, thus making more clear what he had said earlier.

This is not the first time that we have seen this kind of blanket “forgiveness” by folks in the face of heinous crimes against their loved ones. In the past few years I remember another case in Indiana where a white man forgave the black murderers of his white wife.

Now, the way this “forgiveness” can come across, especially when offered in the context of this kind of horrid sin, is that the person forgiving is willing to let “bygones be bygones,” as if we are going to ignore the necessity to hate unrighteousness. However, the God who instructs us to forgive is the same God who commands us to “hate that which is evil,” and it it is no hatred of evil to come across as if one treats grievous sin lightly.

I think somewhere along the way the Christian church has done a disservice to its members by teaching them to respond to glaring evil with a seeming nonchalant “I forgive you for raping and murdering my wife,” or, “I forgive you for driving a knife into my son’s chest because he told you to go sit somewhere else.”

Allow me to suggest that our forgiving someone doesn’t mean that the consequences that sin brings are no longer in force. Horizontal forgiveness does not mean the offender gets repeated opportunities to do us harm. “I forgive you” is to release us from vindictiveness and bitterness but it does not mean we put ourselves again in the position to be offended against by the perp. In a realistic world the husband of the murdered wife in Indiana could have said in one breath; “Personally, I forgive you thus releasing my personal vengeance against you but I will do all that I can to see that you get the death penalty.” There is no inconsistency in this statement. Neither would it be inconsistent at that point to plead with the criminal by visiting them in jail repeatedly that they repent and trust Christ, all the while insisting that they be visited with capital punishment.

I may forgive a babysitter for doing something harmful to my children, but that person will never babysit my children again no matter how much they repent. Further, I will make it known to others that the abusive babysitter should not be brought into their homes to babysit. However, that doesn’t mean that I haven’t forgiven the abusive babysitter.

Forgiveness, in these kinds of cases, has to have not only in mind our relationship to the person who has violated us but it must also have in mind other people who will in the future have interaction with the perp. Do we really want to argue that my personal forgiveness of someone means that the perp should not be met with the full weight of the law? This kind of forgiveness would put others in the cross-hairs of future similar behavior. This kind of forgiveness – a forgiveness that would diminish the just penalty against public crime – would be a violation of the 6th commandment. Similarly, a kind of forgiveness that would divert from the awfulness of the crime could also be seen as not giving the 6th commandment its full weight.

Wilhelmus à Brakel’s in his systematic theology, “The Christian’s Reasonable Service” writes;

“To say, “I forgive you” when such is not warranted is a triumphant boasting of your kindness and will harden the offender in his sin.”

Vol. 3 — p. 565-566

I am not confident that the kind of forgiveness that we see in these kind of tragedies is really a biblical forgiveness.

Rev. Zach Garris pointed me to a quote here from the great Southern Presbyterian Benjamin Morgan Palmer which sustain what I have been teaching/preaching for some years. While insisting that Christians must forgive the perp, Palmer noted here;

“Forgiveness does not necessarily include restoration to full confidence, as before the offence,” as “the offence may disclose attributes of character.” So while we must forgive others, “it may be sometimes our duty to protest against a wrong which we heartily forgive, by the withdrawal of intercourse—not as an act of resentment, but as a judicial testimony against sin.”

Secondly, we must continue to plead with people to be realistic concerning the issue of race. It is no surprise that the perp who killed the white lad was black. This is not to say that all black people are murderers but it is to say that statistics overwhelmingly bear out that when it comes to violent crimes people of color are more likely to be the perps. Only in a brain dead world is it considered bad form to notice significant and repeatable patterns in various people groups.

Click to access Color-Of-Crime-2016.pdf

Even Rev. Jesse Jackson confirmed my point when years ago he wrote;

“There is nothing more painful to me at this stage in my life than to walk down the street and hear footsteps… then turn around and see somebody white and feel relieved.”

Jesse Jackson

If Jesse Jackson can recognize the reality that people of color are more likely to be perps in violent crimes than there should be no shame in agreeing with him by saying that when around non-white people in large numbers white people’s heads should be on a swivel looking out for danger.

Dr. Herman Bavinck, The Kinist

Thanks to the girlish hyperventilating of people like Joe Boot, James White, Andrew Sandlin, and Doug Wilson the idea of Kinism has become a “set your hair on fire” controversial position. However, it is simply the case that prior to 1945 or so Kinism was merely one doctrinal petal in the whole Reformed flower. Kinism was part and parcel of “Reformed Christian” just as “total depravity” was.

There are now two different anthologies out that demonstrate that in spades. If you haven’t read them you should.

Who Is My Neighbor — Achdow & Ord
A Survey of Racialism in Christian Sacred Tradition — Alexander Soren

Given that Kinism was merely one doctrine that comprised the Christian faith for pretty much all Christians with the exception of Anabaptists we should not be surprised to find that the great Dutch Reformed Theologian
Herman Bavinck was Kinist.

Bavinck is clear that grace does not eliminate creational differences among men:

“God does that by establishing the structures of family, society, and state among human beings. He awakens in the human heart a natural love between men and women, parents and children. He nurtures a variety of social virtues among people: a pull toward social relationships and longing for affection and friendship. He also scatters humanity into different people groups and languages to protect them from total decline. Among those nations, he creates the national virtues of affection for and love of fatherland. He permits these different people groups to organize themselves into states to whom is given the calling to regulate the relationships among the many diverse spheres of society and maintain justice.”

Herman Bavinck

“Reformed Social Ethics”
(GBP, 440-41)

1964 Rushdoony Nails The Purpose Of The Hart-Cellar Act — McAtee Expands

“The purpose of the Hart-Cellar immigration law of 1965 was threefold.

First, it was described by NY Republican Senator Javitz as ‘the civil rights legislation for the world.’ Now, had we so described the bill, we would have been accused of misrepresentation, but we have the authority of Senator Javits that this bill is ‘the civil rights legislation of the world.’ In other words, it will establish, as a civil right of any person, anywhere in the world that they have a right to come to the United States, that immigration is no longer a privilege, a right which we hold and which we extend as a privilege to whomever we choose, but a civil right of anyone in the world. This then is the first function of the Hart-Cellar 1964 Immigration Act.

Its second function is to transfer immigration control from the legislative branch to the executive, so that the control of immigration, which has historically been in the hands of congress will be transferred to the administration.

Third, the law would be basically secondary to the president’s wishes, so that the basic law would be the will of the president, and it really would be a blank check. There would be no effective prohibition of anyone, whether subversive, mentally defective, a prostitute, a pervert, anyone would have the right to come into the country. There would be no effective bar.

This then, is the nature of the Kennedy-Johnson bill (Hart-Cellar Act). The likelihood of passage is very, very great unless a storm of protest overwhelms congress and compels them to surrender their present inclination to accept the bill. The purpose of this immigration policy then is to unify man, to bring about the unity of the godhead. Its purpose, and its premise, is not economic but religious. It is theologically rooted in this religious dream, the United Nations.

R. J. Rushdoony
Pocket College Lecture — 1964 Lecture

If ever the title of “Prophet” should be laid on someone that someone should be Rushdoony.

If we fill in the blanks just a wee bit more we would say now;

1.) The unification of man, as desired by the Globalists in these uS – a unification that RJR insists was inspired by the desire to have a unified manhood (world population) serving as god — was to be achieved by massive emigration patterns from the third world to the first world.

2.) Think of the purposeful change in immigration patterns as the pursuit of the lowest common denominator in order to level the nations. This is immigrational socialism.

3.) This vision of the Globalists that RJR exposed in 1964 could only be brought about by both the re-configuration of global populations via emigration AND massive propaganda agenda to push miscegenation once those populations have been re-arranged. As such, miscegenation, serves alongside the purposeful emigration agenda. Man will be melded, via marriage and breeding, into a singular non-distinguishable interchangeable cog. Once achieved it is a small step to Global citizenship in a New World Order.

4.) Because all of this is, as RJR writes above, was a part of the dream of the Globalists this means, by necessity, the homogenization process cannot be restricted to racial homogenization via miscegenation, and cultural homogenization via the same process, but also what also must be pursued in religious homogenization. A globalist New World Order requires not only a homogenization of race and culture but also requires a homogenization of all religions into one. Of course, this means the overthrow of distinctive Christianity which is being accomplished via the “Christian” churches refusal to speak out against Globalism (Babelism). As sure as night follows day you can count on the fact that Christianity will increasingly be less and less distinctive (than it already is) from other religions.

5.) If immigration is a civil right of anyone in the world then by necessity America cannot be anything but a propositional nation. If immigration to America is a civil right of anyone in the world then America cannot be a place defined by a people sharing a common ancestry and heritage, a common history, a common Anglo culture or even a common language.

6.) The ultimate purpose for all this was to destroy Christianity and this remains the ultimate purpose for all this. Those in the Church who cannot see this are co-conspirators in the silly attempt of rolling Christ off His throne.

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.