Kinism

Kinism: Nationalism & Agnosticism

Previously, we outlined the necessity of Christianity for nationalism by exposing the error of atheism. In addition to atheism, however, agnosticism is equally popular among nationalists, and this too is foolish. Agnosticism is the view or belief that the reality or unreality of God is unknown or unknowable. However, for an Agnostic Nationalist, this creates a paradoxical error.

If you cannot or don't know of an objective standard, such as God, then you are left with only subjectivity. In simple terms, objectivity means having a fixed and universal standard that doesn't change, while subjectivity suggests that meaning depends on individual perspectives.

The absence of a known unchanging external standard implies that there is no knowable set meaning to anything; hence, meaning must vary from person to person, becoming mere subjective opinion. In short, there is no standard beyond oneself. Therefore, a consistent agnostic is necessarily a skeptic and cannot hold any dogmatic position on true morality. This is the fatal error of an agnostic nationalist, for if you assert that one cannot definitively know true morality, then the definite moral assertion that nationalism is the correct position—that your folk truly do have special meaning—is contradictory. For how could it possibly be that true definite morality is unknowable, yet at the same time, you claim to know it is, without a doubt, truly moral to support one's nation? This is illogical.

An illogical movement is a foolish one. Nationalism needs Christianity; you need Christianity. You need Kinism.

@Kinism

Kinism: Equality?

In our modern society, you'll often hear people, perhaps even within your own family, make statements such as "at the end of the day, we're all the same" when discussing race. This is presented as if it somehow challenges or dismisses Kinism. To properly address this sentiment, we must first inquire about the intended meaning behind such a statement. People might respond with a vague assertion such as "we're all human," to which the Kinist has no objection. While it is true that we are all equal in the eyes of the Lord in terms of sinfulness, does this equality imply that it is unchristian to show preferential love and treatment to certain individuals over others? Certainly not.

For instance, these same individuals have no issue with treating their children, their own flesh and blood, with a higher degree of care compared to others. Yet, this acknowledgment does not imply that others are not considered equal in the eyes of God. Similarly, when it comes to nationality and ethnicity, we may extend a higher degree of care to our own kin, our own ethnicity, just as we would with our own children, as they too are our own flesh and blood.

@Kinism

Kinism: Described & Prescribed

Acts 17:26-27 plays a pivotal role in substantiating the tenets of Kinism, as this passage delineate God's deliberate division of nations into specific geographic areas based on their ethnic heritage—in other words, segregation. Critics may argue that a description of God's actions does not necessarily imply prescription. However, such skepticism is erroneous when applied to this passage.

Their error lies in dismissing the significance of why God performed the actions described in these verses—the underlying purpose. In this context, what transpires is God's segregation of nations, a measure taken to foster the pursuit of faith in Him (v27). Therefore, we must pose the question: "Do we still desire to fulfil the purpose outlined, namely, the seeking of God?" The unequivocal answer is yes. Consequently, we must remain inclined to emulate and maintain God's actions as described: segregation.

In summary, God undertook segregation as a means to achieve a higher end, namely, faithfulness, and therefore should be obeyed. As, at any rate, we thereby know that national segregation is a method or tool used by God himself to strengthen a people seeking Him. So, surely, the logical idea to take away from that is to emulate it if we want to advance the kingdom with less hinderance.

@Kinism

Kinism: John Calvin

John Calvin (1509 – 1564) was a French theologian, pastor, and reformer in Geneva during the Protestant Reformation. He was instrumental in the establishment of the Reformed tradition. His commentary on Acts 17:26 clearly expounds on Kinism.

"Now, we see, as in a camp, every troop and band hath his appointed place, so men are placed upon earth, that every people may be content with their bounds, and that among these people every particular person may have his mansion. But though ambition have, oftentimes raged, and many, being incensed with wicked lust, have past their bounds, yet the lust of men hath never brought to pass, but that God hath governed all events from out of his holy sanctuary."

— John Calvin's Commentary

@Kinism

Kinism: Expected Ethnocentrism

In Romans 9, the apostle Paul expresses deep sorrow and anguish over the unrepentant state of the Hebrews, his own kin. He emphasises his willingness to be "accursed and cut off from Christ", indicating that he would be willing to go to Hell if it meant the salvation of his relatives (kin, ethnicity, ethno-nation). It is crucial to note that Paul is specifically referring to his "kindred according to the flesh", highlighting not spiritual relations but physical blood relations. This verse exemplifies the type of ethnocentrism—a special degree of care for one's ethnic group or kin, both physically and spiritually—that Paul explicitly outlined in 1 Timothy 5:8.

Rom. 9:3,

"For I could wish that I myself were accursed and cut off from Christ for the sake of my brothers, my kinsmen according to the flesh."

1 Tim. 5:8,

"But if anyone does not provide for his relatives [kindred], and especially for members of his household, he has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever."

@Kinism

Kinism: Simplified

Kinism is the Christian doctrine that advocates for ethno-nationalism and, consequently, segregation along ethnic lines, suggesting that different ethnic groups, composed of varying ancestral/racial backgrounds, should live separately. This doctrine is derived through simple logical inference from Scripture. Consider the following argument:

Premise 1: The Scriptures inform us about the reality of Nations (Genesis 10).

Premise 2: The Scriptures indicate that Biblical nations are defined by common or shared ancestry, not solely beliefs/ideology — Ethnonations, ethnicities (Genesis 10, 'after their families').

Premise 3: God intentionally instituted and set bounds for where these nations are to dwell or inhabit, purposefully separating them perpetually (Deuteronomy 32:8 & Acts 17:26).

Conclusion: It is God's will and intention that nations/ethnicities remain separate/segregated. Therefore, we must submit to His will and follow this directive (James 4:17).

@Kinism

Kinism: Matthew Poole

Matthew Poole (1624–1679) was an English Non-conformist Reformed theologian and biblical commentator. He was educated at Emmanuel College, Cambridge, and wrote English Annotations on the Holy Bible, in which he clearly displays support for Kinism. See his commentary on Deuteronomy 32:8, in which he states,

"Separated the sons of Adam", i.e. divided them in their languages and habitations according to their families [Shared Ancestry]. "He set the bounds of the people", i.e. he disposed of [Allocated] the several lands and limits of the people, so as he did reserve a convenient and sufficient place for the great numbers of the people of Israel, whom he designed to make as numerous as the stars of heaven.

— Matthew Poole's Commentary

@Kinism

Kinism: Matthew Henry

Matthew Henry (18 October 1662 – 22 June 1714) was a British Reformed Protestant minister and author who was born in Wales but spent much of his life in England. He is best known for the six-volume biblical commentary Exposition of the Old and New Testaments, In which he is clearly seen to espouse Kinism:

Because of their relation to them: My brethren, my kinsmen, according to the flesh. Though they were very bitter against him upon all occasions, and gave him the most unnatural and barbarous usage, yet thus respectfully does he speak of them. It shows him to be a man of a forgiving spirit. Not that I had aught to accuse my nation of, Acts 28:19. My kinsmen. Paul was a Hebrew of the Hebrews. We ought to be in a special manner concerned for the spiritual good of our relations, our brethren and kinsmen. To them we lie under special engagements, and we have more opportunity of doing good to them; and concerning them, and our usefulness to them, we must in a special manner give account.

— Matthew Henry's Commentary

@Kinism

Kinism: What are Bounds?

In Acts 17:26, a pivotal passage for supporting Kinism—the Christian doctrine of ethnonationalism and ethno-segregation—we encounter a profound statement:

"And hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth, and hath determined the times before appointed, and the bounds of their habitation;"

This verse highlights God's role in assigning nations, ethnicities, specific "bounds of habitation". But what does this mean precisely? "Bounds" refers to limitations, often synonymous with "boundary", denoting a separating line. This separating line, in reference to nations, can take the form of physical geography or politically drawn barriers—a delineation between habitations, or what we term 'habitational boundaries'. In essence, God has designated specific geographical areas for specific nations to dwell, live, and inhabit separately from one another.

@Kinism

Kinism: Nationalism & Atheism

Atheism posits that there is no God. However, without a transcendent standard, everything becomes meaningless—without purpose. This is because, in the absence of an objective standard like God, only subjectivity remains. In simple terms, objectivity means having a fixed and universal standard that doesn't change, while subjectivity suggests that meaning depends on individual perspectives.

This absence of an unchanging external standard implies that there is no set meaning to anything; rather, meaning varies from person to person, becoming mere opinion. In short, there is no standard beyond oneself. Hence, a consistent atheist is a nihilist—the belief that all values are ultimately, in the end, meaningless. This raises the question, "If all values are indeed ultimately, in the end, meaningless, why care about nationalism, or your people, at all?"

If an atheist claims they care because they personally prescribe meaning to preserving their nation, then they are inconsistent or illogical. For how can you assert or hold that everything is meaningless and, at the same time, argue that some things do have meaning? This is a basic contradiction.

An illogical movement is a foolish one. Nationalism needs Christianity; you need Christianity. You need Kinism.

@Kinism

Kinism: Game Plan

Kinism, the Christian doctrine of ethno-nationalism and ethno-segregation, is a movement for the masses. It serves as a means of securing our race and our people. Once someone embraces Kinism faithfully, their genetic bloodline is secured, and we can begin building an ethnocentric mentality. Therefore, it is paramount to get as many people on board as possible. This can be achieved through three basic steps:

Step 1: Attend Church.

Step 2: Engage in conversations about faith and Scripture.

Step 3: After establishing a relationship with a person, introduce them to Kinism by discussing their thoughts on a given logical argument for Kinism.

This straightforward process contributes more to the well-being of our people than online rants and edgy memes. This is how we preserve and magnify our folk.

@Kinism

Kinism: Prioritising the Gospel?

When discussing Kinism, the Christian doctrine of ethno-nationalism and ethno-segregation, critics often pose a question or assert, 'Even if Kinism is true, should we truly be this divisive? Shouldn't we prioritise the gospel first?'

This assertion suggests that advocating for segregation might dissuade individuals from embracing the gospel, given contemporary society's heightened sensitivity to anything perceived as 'racist'. However, this reasoning is flawed. It shouldn't matter if it appears divisive, as the gospel itself is inherently offensive and foolishness to those who aren't saved. As articulated in 1 Corinthians 1:18:

"For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God."

Note:
Despite the gospel's inherent offensiveness, it must be remembered that this is certainly not an excuse to not be respectful, articulate, and cordial when discussing. 1 Peter 3:15 states,

"but in your hearts honor Christ the Lord as holy, always being prepared to make a defense to anyone who asks you for a reason for the hope that is in you; yet do it with gentleness and respect,"

@Kinism

Kinism: Teach the Masses

Within online circles, many individuals firmly align with 'right-wing' perspectives. However, in the offline world, they tend to keep their theological (religious) and political views closeted, while simultaneously desiring to share them. This 'fear' of sharing said beliefs often arises from the backlash that many would receive for such views. However, Kinism serves as a safe and cordial means into these discussions.

Kinism, the Christian doctrine of ethno-nationalism and ethno-segregation, is able to relieve this fear because the central point of discussion is the word of God, Scripture, and what it does and does not teach. This shifts the pressure from the individual, as it can easily be discussed in ways such as "what are your thoughts about this biblical argument?" and then outline some simple yet robust Kinist arguments.

This form of discussion is far easier to use to win Christians and others over to the ethno-nationalist position compared to relying on random statistics, blind hatred, and seemingly autistic rants. (Note: We are not suggesting that ethno-nationalists are fearful. Instead, this is about garnering support from as many people as possible without causing them to feel disgust towards the movement due to media or socially enforced morality.)

@Kinism

Kinism: why be so Political?

In discussions about Kinism, the Christian doctrine of ethno-nationalism and ethno-segregation, critics often question its political nature, asking, 'Should we really be this political?'

However, this statement of theirs is erroneous and hypocritical, given that many Christians readily engage in political discussions on issues such as abortion, slavery, and homosexuality. So, why the hesitation when it comes to Kinism? In simple terms, just as Christians take political stances on topics like abortion, we are perfectly able and expected to have political views on ethno-nationalism and, consequently, Kinism.

@Kinism

Kinism: A Holy Nation?

Opponents of the Christian doctrine of Kinism, which advocates ethno-nationalism and ethno-segregation, often argue, "If you're a Christian, you are of the same nation as every other Christian; therefore, we are all one." This is similar to the 'neither Jew nor Greek' argument, in that it tries to annul the validity of ethno-nations. They often use 1 Peter 2:9 for this claim, which states,

"But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, a holy nation [Ethnos], a peculiar people;"

Here, the church is referred to as a holy nation, a holy ethnos; however, this in no way serves to validate their claim. As the church is also described and referred to as a bride (Rev. 19:7). Yet, does this mean that every Christian becomes literally a woman, a bride? Certainly not. So too, when we are described as a holy nation, it does not literally mean we all become one nation, as the Bible distinctly lays out that a nation is defined by familial lineage, biology, just as sexes are defined by biology. It would be inconsistent to take one literary description as literal and the other as metaphorical.

@Kinism

Kinism: Ethnocentrism in Practice

To be ethnocentric, in practice, we must prioritise both the physical and spiritual well-being of our own people, our own kin, above all else. This entails evangelising and treating our own ethnic kin as the most crucial missionary field. After all, is it not more important to ensure the faithfulness of one's own covenant household than that of someone outside of it?

@Kinism

Kinism: Explaining Ethnocentrism

To be 'ethnocentric' is akin to being family (kin)-oriented, and thus, ethnicity (ethnos)-oriented. When we say someone is family-oriented, it means valuing and prioritising the well-being (physically and spiritually), history, and culture of one's own family above others. Similarly, to be ethnocentric is to be ethnos-oriented, nation-oriented, prioritising the well-being (again, physically and spiritually), culture, and history of our kin, our ethnic group, above all other foreign ethnicities. We are to care for and provide for our own first, owing our ethnic group a special degree of care. 1 Timothy 5:8 states,

"But if anyone does not provide for his own [relatives, kin], and especially for those of his own household [immediate family], he has denied the faith and is worse than an infidel."

Kinism is biblically prescribed ethnocentrism, emphasising that the well-being of our nation and our folk takes precedence.

@Kinism