“The maximal form (of Kinism) identifies kinism with biblical theonomy or Reformed orthodoxy and treats rejection of the system as theological unfaithfulness.”
Jonathan Tomes
Substack Series on Kinism
Now we need to pause here to ask Mr. Tomes here what are the options left to us for social order organization if we reject Kinism. This is a crucial question that nobody seems to be asking or answering, and it is a question I’ve been waving my hands and jumping up and down trying to get people to answer. Consider, that if one is determined to reject Kinism it strikes me that all that is left in its place is,
a.) Internationalism (New World Order / Communism)
b.) Civic Nationalism (Propositional Nationalism)
c.) Egalitarianism/Multi-culturalism (which Communism [a] has historically pushed)
d.) Economic Nationalism
Inevitably choices (b) and (d) end up being (c) since (b) and (d) by definition exclude genetic connections. Civic Nationalism and Economic nationalism operate on the basis that descent from a common ancestor is not necessary. The options, (b) and (d) operate on the basis of non-natal connections and so is inherently anti-Kinism. I would observe that all the options above end up being some form of Internationalism.
So, if those options are indeed the only other choices left to choose from besides Kinism, then I would agree that the rejection of Kinism is a matter of theological unfaithfulness, since what is being advanced by our opponents is a social order that does not reflect reality. The dilution of natural family ties and the Ordo Amoris is contrary to the way God made man to function.
People who reject Kinism must provide an alternative social order organization that isn’t egalitarian/multi-cultural and that is Biblical.
I, along with all the Kinists everywhere are waiting for that non familial social order that isn’t egalitarian/multi-cultural and that is Biblical. It strikes me that all other options, in the words of Joseph Sobran,
“… consistently attacks three basic social institutions that, by offering independent bases of action, loyalty, and authority, impede the state’s monopoly of power: private property, the family, and religion. Marxism attacks these things directly: it confiscates property, breaks up families, and persecutes worshippers. (It may be forced to come to terms with all three in order to avoid collapse, but in its early phase it tries to abolish them, and it accepts them later only as dependencies — smaller subdivisions — of the state.) Liberalism avoids the direct attack; it prefers to subvert property, family, and religion more gradually, undermining their definitions rather than attempting open violence.”