Category: Ethnic considerations

Culture, Peoples, and Beliefs

“The idea that some cultures are better than others and that some are worse than others was the most common Christian thing until our brains were broken and we were forced to pretend not to know things.”

Dr. Stephen Wolfe
X post

Bret responds

The above is true but it is more true than Wolfe might even like to admit. Culture is not something that drops out of the sky. Culture is the result of a particular set of beliefs as embraced and lived out be a particular ethnic people group. This is why we can say that culture is theology externalized. When we say that culture is theology externalized we are noting that a particular ethnic group have owned a particular theology and they are, as a particular people living out that particular theology. This is why it can also be said that culture is the outward manifestation of a particular people groups inward beliefs.

Because culture is one part genetics and one part plausibility structure as owned by that genetic grouping it is the case that should either of those two factors be changed out, the result will be a different culture. So, if one changes either the people group who are doing the believing or if one changes out the set of beliefs that the particular people group believe the consequence will be a different culture. This explains why if you have different races occupying the same geographic space that there will be conflict even if those different races hold the same beliefs. There will be conflict because genetics matter and genetics are one of the two factors that comprise culture. The same is true if you flip the scenario. If you have the same racial/ethnic people group occupying the same geographic area but some of the people in that people group own a different religion there will be conflict that rises up between the varying belief systems. For example, White people who embrace Marxism, living cheek by jowl with white people who embrace Biblical Christianity will not get along.

Now, imagine what we are trying to do now in the West. We are trying to put together in the same geographic space different peoples groups with different religious beliefs. We are trying to place alien Mooselimbs, Jews, and Indians (dot not feather) Hindus, etc. together with white Christians into one living space and we are expecting that there is going to be harmonious culture. It is as rational as to geld a horse and then expect it to be fruitful.

Let us add to what was said above; since cultures are a combination of particular people and their particular beliefs this necessitates thinking that some particular people(s) and beliefs are better than other particular peoples and/or beliefs. If one culture is superior to another culture or if one culture is inferior to another the reason for that superiority or inferiority is going to be found in one of the two realities that comprise culture. Culture A is going to be superior to culture B either because the people themselves are a superior people or the beliefs of the people in culture A or superior to the beliefs of people in culture B or some combination of the two.

We cannot argue that cultures are superior or inferior to other cultures without arguing also that the reason this is so is because a combination of distinct ethnic/racial people groups and their beliefs are at the same time superior and/or inferior to another.

Now, because of the West’s revolutionary egalitarianism we don’t like saying or observing these truths that used to be accepted as a matter of fact. In America the civil rights legislation of the 1960s prohibited us from thinking the obvious. But the denial of the obvious doesn’t make the obvious go away. Peoples are different and different peoples build different cultures. Beliefs are different and different belief systems build different cultures. Different peoples with the same belief system will build different cultures. People who are the same with different belief systems will build different cultures.

This really isn’t that difficult… unless you’re an egalitarian.

Ecclesiastical Condemnation On The Sin of Noticing

Something interesting happened this past season of Reformed denominational confabs. The something interesting is the ruling by the RPCNA, the ARP, and the PCA, together agreeing to issue forth an anathema against the sin of noticing. Each of them put their stamp approval of the following statement;

That the 221st General Synod of the Associate Reformed Presbyterian Church 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 would promote or associate themselves with such teaching, either by commission or omission.

Leave it to the Reformed to try and sweep back the incoming tidal wave of racial realism with a document inspired by the Cultural Marxism of the 1930s and the Civil Rights movement of the 1960s. This riff of midwittery above was put forth by one Rev. Benjamin Glaser though there is rumor that the palsied hand of Rev. Andy Webb was involved as well. Any party to the creation of this document as well as any party who voted for this to be accepted deserves to have a pointy dunce hat put on them and be consigned to some ecclesiastical corner to mull over the error of their ways.

Below I provide a brief analysis of this Tom Foolery;

1.) What is not condemned here is any sociological or cultural anthropological teaching which posits a superiority of race or ethnic identity. Apparently, if one casts their teaching in sociological or cultural anthropological terms one is safe from this foolhardy Presbyterian condemnation.

2.) Here we find a condemnation approved by a Church body and yet this condemnation is not based upon any notification of which sin has been committed so has to have this condemnation uttered. Presumably, this condemnation is due to the fact that someone somewhere has violated at least one of the ten commandments. Yet, nowhere above to we find the sin committed that has earned this condemnation.

3.) In point of fact what this “church” condemnation abominates is the sin of noticing. In point of fact it might be the highest point yet for inveighing against the sin of noticing ever issued by a church body.

4.) One thing we can be thankful for with this Church condemnation is the fact that it is apparently the case now that race and ethnicity are being acknowledged as real realities and not merely social constructs. I mean this is an improvement on what we have previously gotten from Doug Wilson and Voddie Baucham on the issue of race. Wilson wants to insist that race is a social construct and Voddie wants to say that race is merely about melanin levels. At least the three NAPARC denominations are granting that race and ethnicity are real.

5.) If there can be no superiority of race or ethnic identity born of immutable human characteristic then by necessity there can be no inferiority of race or ethnic identity born of immutable human characteristic. This means that when it comes to immutable human characteristics these conservative denominations are 100% egalitarian.  It is not possible, per these esteemed clergy, that God has created the different races / ethnicities of men to be differentiated in their varying expressions of humanity.

6.) What would happen if someone arose within these NAPARC denominations insisted that while average Australian Aboriginal  intelligence is inferior when compared to average East Asian intelligence but insisted this while admitting all this may be mutable over enough time? Would anyone in the NAPARC denominations even care? Would they care if the same person said at the same time that the average white European intelligence is, on average, two standard deviation points higher than sub-Saharan Blacks in the US as long as the person saying this conceded that it might not be immutable and that 1000 years later this might not be true? Would such a person who believed this not be condemned by these ultracrepidarian Presbyterians?

7.) If these chaps are serious about condemning someone who holds these views how is it, if they can’t substantiate from Scripture why it is necessary to agree with them, that they have not added to what it means to obey the Gospel? How have they not added to the Gospel and in so doing anathematized themselves by doing so?

8.) Think about the numerous church fathers from church history these clowns have condemned. Off the top of my head these clowns have condemned Calvin, Kuyper, Hodge, Dabney, Schaff, Solzhenitsyn, Francis Nigel Lee, John Edwards Richards, etc. It really is monstrous when one realizes the level of avarice to the end of popularity involved in this pronouncement.

9.) This whole thing is perfectly ended with the stated need for repentance on the part of anybody who would associate with the teaching – either by omission or commission – that is condemned. Presumably, this would mean that if someone attends a church who themselves are unsure on the ideas condemned and found themselves friends or associates of someone who does believe these condemned ideas said person would have to repent just for associating with these sinners.

10.) This official condemnation also gives tyrant Pastors the ability to just remove membership of a member of their church if that member was to say, for example, something like, “Well, I think that Michael Hunter has some interesting points to consider in his article on Natural vs. non-Natural communities.” Such a person would be required to repent and if they refused, per this anathema, they would have to be cast out of the body should these nekulturny clergy be consistent with their words.

Examining Doug Wilson’s Argument For The Differences Between Races

“Not that many centuries ago, my ancestors were engaged in idolatry, human sacrifice, and mindless superstitions… [but] their descendants would be building cathedrals and writing symphonies. The gospel is the issue—grace, not race.”

Doug Wilson

Wilson exposes his Gnosticism with this quote. However there is some truth in what Wilson writes here as seen in I Peter 1:18

Forasmuch as ye know that ye were not redeemed with corruptible things, as silver and gold, from your vain conversation received by tradition from your fathers;

I Peter 1:18

However, Wilson tries to make these kinds of texts prove too much. Wilson’s problem here is that he wants to insist that culture is only a product of what occurs in the thinking that goes on between people’s ears without taking into consideration that men in their variegated existence are composite beings whose genetic inheritance impacts the way that thinking they do is processed.

Wilson’s naked fathers once visited w/ the Gospel are not going to build cultures that look the same as the culture that Mongolians or Hutus build who are visited by the Gospel. History has demonstrated that white people visited with the Gospel build superior cultures compared to non-white people who have been visited with the Gospel. By God’s grace alone White people have been the civilizational carriers of Christianity. This explains why white people are so hated. They are so hated because they are perfumed with the perfume of Christ on a civilizational basis that has never been true of other races.

Herein we find the Gnosticism in Wilson’s (and others) thinking. They refuse to take the manishness of man in his diversity seriously. They think that if all men think all the same way (if they all think Gospel thoughts) they will be all the same building all the same exact cultures.

THAT is both GNOSTIC & IDIOTIC.

Yes, Wilson’s later ancestors (well, the non-Jewish ones … Doug likes to boast of his Jewish admixture) were building Cathedrals and writing symphonies and yes that was all of God’s grace. However, God’s grace was not only found in their regeneration and so change of thinking patterns. That grace was also found in the genetic inheritance (race) that God in creation and in His providential ordering determined they would have. To deny this is Gnostic, and frankly, on this subject, Doug is Gnostic.

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.”

John Reasnor’s Definition Of “Kinism” Examined

“Kinism – A system that theologically supports racial or ethnic separatism. The degree of which varying Kinists support separatism or supremacy will vary.”
 

John Reasnor

Often I will complain that people who condemn Kinism have themselves no working definition of what Kinism is. However, Reasnor here takes a stab at a definition. Let us consider what he offers here.

1.) Keep in mind that the chap who is faulting a theological support for racial and ethnic separatism is a chap who employs theological support for egalitarianism. If one is going to fault a system of thought because it theologically supports racial or ethnic separatism, in any degree, then it must be the case  that said person has a theological system that desires no racial or ethnic separatism and the desire for absolutely no racial or ethnic separatism is egalitarianism. Indeed, it is the same exact theological system that was pursued by the builders of Babel.

So, if an Egalitarian like Mr. Reasnor is going to accuse Kinists of not being Egalitarian then, speaking only for myself, I admit my guilt. It is true … not being someone who supports egalitarianism, I am a Kinist. Indeed, by the definition above, anyone who thinks that races are real and so distinct and should be honored as real and distinct is a Kinist. In point of fact by Mr. Reasnor’s definition anybody who is not an egalitarian is ipso facto a “Kinist.”

2.) With this quote Reasnor has put a vast multitude of our Church fathers in the dock as being “Kinist.” Here are four Church Fathers (and their are multitude more) who are guilty of believing “a system that theologically supports racial or ethnic separatism.” and so by Mr. Reasnor’s definition were Kinists when they were alive.

“Hence, I question very much the wisdom of any attempts to ‘integrate’ the church. Making our Negro brethren in Christ welcome when they voluntarily come to worship with us is one thing; seeking to attempt integration for the sake of a witness may do more harm than good.”

Dr. E.J. Young
WTS professor and OPC minister – 1964

Page 130 of the October 1964 edition of The Presbyterian Guardian

Difference of race or condition or sex is indeed taken away by the unity of faith, but it remains imbedded in our mortal interactions, and in the journey of this life the apostles themselves teach that it is to be respected, and they even proposed living in accord with the racial differences between Jews and Greeks as a wholesome rule.

St. Augustine on Galatians 3:28

“Regarding our eternal salvation, it is true that one must not distinguish between man and woman, or between king and a shepherd, or between a German and a Frenchman. Regarding policy, however, we have what St. Paul declares here; for our, Lord Jesus Christ did not come to mix up nature, or to abolish what belongs to the preservation of decency and peace among us….Regarding the kingdom of God (which is spiritual) there is no distinction or difference between man and woman, servant and master, poor and rich, great and small. Nevertheless, there does have to be some order among us, and Jesus Christ did not mean to eliminate it, as some flighty and scatterbrained dreamers [believe].”

John Calvin
Sermon on 1 Corinthians 11:2-3

“Love imagines that it can overleap the barriers of race and blood and religion, and in the enthusiasm and ecstasy of choice these obstacles appear insignificant. But the facts of experience are against such an idea. Mixed marriages are rarely happy. Observation and experiences demonstrate that the marriage of a Gentile and Jew, a Protestant and a Catholic, an American and a Foreigner has less chance of a happy result than a marriage where the man and woman are of the same race and religion….”

Dr. Clarence MacCartney
Presbyterian Minister

Indeed, the definition that Mr. Reasnor gives us above could have been written by a Marxist, as Marxists have been the ones who have denied that there should be any racial or ethnic separatism.

”What will be the attitude of communism to existing nationalities?

The nationalities of the peoples associating themselves in accordance with the principle of community will be compelled to mingle with each other as a result of this association and hereby to dissolve themselves, just as the various estate and class distinctions must disappear through the abolition of their basis, private property.”

~ Frederick Engels in “The Principles of Communism”, 1847

Or we might consult one Nikita Khrushchev on the matter.

“Full-scale Communist construction constitutes a new stage in the development of national relations in the U.S.S.R., in which the nations will draw still closer together until complete unity is achieved…. However, the obliteration of national distinctions and especially of language distinctions is a considerably longer process than the obliteration of class distinctions.”

Nikita Khrushchev

Or perhaps Marx himself,

“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:

So, we do have a definition here from Mr. Reasnor but it is a definition as provided from a Marxist worldview. By Mr. Reasnor’s definition all Christians should be Christian and indeed the only reason that the idea of “Kinism” as a distinct theological discipline has arisen is because the church has adopted a Marxist mindset when it comes to race and social order. Kinism advocates a return to Biblical Christianity as combined with an honoring of our Fathers who were better and wiser men than either myself or Mr. Reasnor.