A media service of European Americans United

Main Menu

  • Home
  • Forum
  • About Us
  • Search
  • Action Alerts
  • FLYERS
  • Free Podcasts
  • Stories by Author
  • New Online Store
  • Archives
  • Categories
  • Links
    Blogs

  • Frank Roman
  • John Young
  • Garden Blog




  • User Menu

  • Register
  • Login
  • Logout
  • Submit News

  • Email This Page


    Syndication Feeds

  • Handheld/PDA
  • XML News Feeds
  • View Sidebar
  • Mozilla Sidebar

  • 26


     
    What is Kinism?
    Philosophy; Posted on: 2009-08-26 14:55:25 [ Printer friendly / Instant flyer ]
    “The America of our grandchildren will be another country altogether,” says Pat Buchanan, “a nation unrecognizable to our parents, a giant Brazil of the North… By 2050, there will be scores of millions of people living here whose loyalty is to a foreign country… If, by 2050, the America we grew up in has become a Tower of Babel of squabbling minorities that is falling apart, it will be because of the treason of the elites, and our lack of will to overthrow them.”

    by H. Seabrook

    In the preface to his book, A Defense of Virginia and the South, R.L. Dabney writes: “To the conquerors of my native State, and perhaps to some of her sons, a large part of the following defense will appear wholly unseasonable. A discussion of a social order totally overthrown…will appear as completely out of date to them as the ribs of Noah’s ark, bleaching amidst the eternal snows of Ararat, to his posterity, when engaged in building the Tower of Babel.”

    You have heard today about the danger facing us, the potential death of the West, and our defense of kinism is wholly unseasonable to those who welcome the impending genocide. It is they who deny that race is real, assert that even if it is real, it’s not important; and even if it’s real and important, it’s wrong to discuss it. They have been trained to identify racism as the greatest problem facing us, and to deny, in the very next breath, that races exist. Well, one of the problems we face is that most people don’t know how to define a word like racism. I submit that racism is the belief that races other than one’s own are sub-human, or the belief that one’s race will be the only race in heaven. Kinism, on the other hand, is the benign awareness that homogeneous social structure breeds trust, and therefore safety. I further submit that the founding race of any nation has the right to determine its ethnic composition and its citizenship. As Jared Taylor reminds us: “If it is ‘racist’ to prefer the company of people of one’s race, to prefer the culture created by one’s race, and to want one’s race to survive and flourish, then virtually everyone of every color is ‘racist,’ and the term has no useful meaning.”

    The Virginia League of the South statement on kinism begins this way: “It is time to discuss the racial issue intelligently. Ignoring it will not make it go away.” Amen! As Scott Trask says, “A common race is the foundation of any true nation, while a common religion is the foundation of a common moral code.” Our race does not buy us a ticket to heaven, but if common stock is the foundation of our nation, it is, as Trask says, “more important even than a common language, culture, political allegiance, or locale. The Bible praises homogeneity as a blessing, and posits it as the basis of love, friendship, social peace, and national harmony. The Bible also sanctions love of nation and fatherland, a virtue antagonistic to indiscriminate and large-scale immigration… The modern desire for global unity, amalgamation of peoples, destruction of territorial boundaries, English as a universal language, and construction of a world government is difficult to see as anything other than a sinful desire to rebuild the Tower of Babel and create an autonomous humanistic order independent of God. It is a rebellious project that defies God’s plan for world order based on discrete nations each residing within its own lands… [This] project for global unity sullies the beauty and diversity of God’s human creation, in that it suggests that the existence of different races, which vary markedly in physical appearance, is a mistake that man is to remedy by racial intermarriage. In this warped version of creation, God is the bungler and man the redeemer.” Such lies emanate even from churches and what are called “conservative” political parties. We have Billy Graham saying that Christians have a duty to foster total racial integration “in our homes, in our worship services, even in our marriages.” And we have “B-1 Bob” Dornan, former Republican congressman from Southern California, saying: “I want to see America stay a nation of immigrants, and if we lose our Northern European stock—your coloring and mine, blue eyes and fair hair—tough! So what if 5,000 years from now we’re all going to have a golden tan… We’re all going to be blended together because of travel, and because of the information highway.” Now you know why the Amish refuse to drive cars. Trask continues: “It therefore seems a bad joke to speak of Christian conservatives or the Christian Right, for there is nothing conservative about acquiescing in a demographic revolution to turn whites into a minority… European Christians should be on their guard against socialists posing as Christians, for the socialistic dream of racial reconciliation and world unity leads to nothing less than the extinction of Europeans as a separate people and the destruction of their civilization. Christians must stand in defense against those who would—in the name of Christ—have us abandon our lands and our people.”

    “The America of our grandchildren will be another country altogether,” says Pat Buchanan, “a nation unrecognizable to our parents, a giant Brazil of the North… By 2050, there will be scores of millions of people living here whose loyalty is to a foreign country… If, by 2050, the America we grew up in has become a Tower of Babel of squabbling minorities that is falling apart, it will be because of the treason of the elites, and our lack of will to overthrow them.”

    The new Tower of Babel is being erected at an alarming pace. Let me read to you some quotes by some of the men promoting world citizenship and pushing the idea that our country is a Dream, an Idea, a Proposition, and an Experiment rather than a particular place founded by particular people.

    Bill Clinton says: “We want to become a multiracial, multiethnic society. This will arguably be the third great revolution…to prove that we literally can live without…having a dominant European culture.”

    Democrat Presidential Candidate Wesley Clark says : “There is no place in modern Europe for ethnically pure states. That’s a 19th century idea and we are trying to transition into the 21st century, and we are going to do it with multiethnic states. Our goal is that after this year, it will no longer be possible for those who support ethnically separate communities to believe that they can succeed.”

    The Humanist Manifesto II: “We deplore the division of humankind on nationalistic grounds. We have reached a turning point in human history where the best option is to transcend the limits of national sovereignty and to move toward the building of a world community in which all sectors of the human family can participate. Thus we look to the development of a system of world law and a world order based upon transnational federal government.”

    The American Jewish Committee: “Americanism is the spirit behind the welcome that America has traditionally extended to people of all races, all religions, all nationalities.”

    “Something is happening,” says Ben Wattenberg. “We are becoming the first universal nation in history… If you believe, as the author does, that the American drama is being played out toward a purpose, then the non-Europeanization of America is heartening news of an almost transcendental quality.”

    From King George the Lesser’s inaugural speech, January 20, 2001: “ America has never been united by blood or birth or soil. We are bound by ideals that move us beyond our background, lift us above our interests, and teach us what it means to be a citizen.”

    Andrew Sandlin of the Center for Cultural Leadership: “Blood and soil mean much less here than ideas. Not race or place, but ideas, have always been at the root of what it means to be an American.”

    Jesse Jackson: “To be an American is not a matter of blood or birth. Our citizens are bound by ideals that represent the hope of all mankind.”

    Arthur Schlesinger, Jr.: “The American Creed envisages a nation composed of individuals making their own choices and accountable to themselves, not a nation based on inviolable ethnic communities.”

    Theodore Roosevelt, who advocated the anti-Christian idea that all should possess “exactly the same rights, not merely legal, but social and spiritual” said: “Americanism is a question of principles, of idealism, of character: it is not a matter of birthplace or creed or line of descent.”

    George William Curtis said: “A man’s country is not a certain area of land, of mountains, rivers, and woods, but it is a principle; and patriotism is loyalty to that principle.”

    Adam Clayton Powell said: The “best thing that could happen would be the passing of the white man’s world [which] has stood for nationalism, oppression, and barbarism.”

    Rabbi Abraham Feinberg: “The law should encourage, not forbid, the intermingling of bloods… The only way we can accomplish…a Final Solution to racial prejudice, is to create a [mixture] of races… The deliberate encouragement of interracial marriages is the only way to hasten this process… we will never completely eliminate racial prejudice until we eliminate separate races.”

    Brock Chisholm, former Director of the U.N. World Health Organization: “What people everywhere must do is practice birth control and miscegenation in order to create one race in one world under one government. The ideal skin for a human being is a coffee-colored skin.”

    Nicole Mullen, a contemporary Christian singer, took his advice. She sings of her family: “Mama looks like coffee, daddy looks like cream, baby is a mocha drop American dream…”

    According to Sean Hannity, Jesus Christ died on the cross for interracial dating. Bill O’Reilly has said that the government should sponsor interracial dances. You get the idea.

    This indoctrination is producing the desired effect. As Michael Olwen says, “The White Race makes up only 8% of the world’s population, and is declining at that, yet it is more likely to practice vasectomy, tubal ligation, or other means of birth control than any other group. Further, even if the average White Man is physically intact, he is still as much of a eunuch as the guard of an Ottoman harem, perhaps even more so. His castration has been subtle but sure; his neutering has been both mental and spiritual. He is a human steer, placidly standing in his field chewing his cud, carefully not giving offense to the bulls who rut with the cows that were once his. Quiet, calm and cooperative, he will stand back from the trough while they eat his food, and when that final truck comes, he will climb aboard with little urging. Disembarking and making his way down the bloody chute, he may, with his final thought, dare to wonder what that man with the bloody apron is doing standing at the end with the sledgehammer in hand.”

    I think Michael Cardinal von Faulhaber said it well: “From the Church’s point of view there is no objection whatever to racial research and race culture. Nor is there any objection to the endeavor to keep national characteristics of a people as far as possible pure and unadulterated, and to foster their national spirit by emphasis upon the common ties of blood to unite them. From the Church’s point of view we must make only three conditions: First, love of one’s race must not lead to the hatred of other nations. Secondly, the individual must never consider himself freed from nourishing his own soul by persevering use of the means of grace which the Church provides. The young man who is always hearing about the blessedness of his own race is apt too easily to conceive that he is no longer bound by duties to God and His Church, duties to humility and chastity. Thirdly, race culture must not assume an attitude of hostility to Christianity.”

    This is all very true, but sadly, politically correct Christians are willfully ignorant of race. Sam Francis writes: “Almost literally every time I have argued or debated about race in a public forum, I get a response from whites of quoting the Bible verse of Galatians 3:28 — ‘There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for you are all one in Christ Jesus.’ This verse apparently has become the basic text for Christian universalism and race denial, although if it were interpreted as literally as those who use it for that purpose do, it would also deny the existence of sexual differences, a conclusion that is not only absurd but would appear to gut the Christian argument against gay marriage.” And this is exactly correct. The very same interpretation that denies racial distinction also logically undercuts rejection of feminism and sodomy.

    According to Dr. Ron Rumburg, “Galatians 3:28 is perhaps the most abused text in modern times. Klyne R. Snodgrass in an article asserted, ‘This text, like some others, has become a hermeneutical skeleton key by which we may go through any door we choose. More often than not, Galatians 3:28 has become a piece of plastic that people have molded to their preconceived ideas’… It is a long way from no difference in salvation in the spiritual realm to destroying all differences in race, authority or sex in the physical world. The result of such an interpretation would be anarchy.”

    Michael Hill observes that “The central creed of modern democracy is based on the false notion that all men are created equal, and all enjoy the same universal, mechanical rights of man. This Jacobinical creed is preached from the pulpits and taught in the seminaries of America as if it had its origins in God’s holy writ; nothing, of course, could be further from the truth.”

    Everyone has heard the term “melting pot.” What you might not know is that it was coined by a Jew named Israel Zangwill, who wrote that America had become a “melting pot…[of] the races of Europe.” You can see how the meaning has been changed. Now men are taught that the bond of kinship is easily interchangeable. The truth is that n ations are born of likeness but die of diversity.

    A Harvard professor named Samuel Huntington has written a book called Who Are We? Now, healthy nations don’t even need to ask such a question. They know who they are. But nations who sell their birthright to the lowest bidder and preach lies such as “diversity is our greatest strength” must inevitably ask such questions. They have forgotten who they are. Huntington argues that there is an “Anglo-Protestant core” to our country, which is controversial enough, but he writes in the Foreword to his book: “This is, let me make clear, an argument for the importance of Anglo-Protestant culture, not for the importance of Anglo-Protestant people.” He must think our culture just boiled out of the ground one sunny day. Of course it’s an argument for the importance of Anglo-Protestant people!

    When we say we love the South, we mean that we love the Southern people. And make no mistake – the Southern people are white Christians descended from the north and west of Europe; the very same Americans who founded and sought to preserve the old republic. Take them away and the South ceases to be Southern. Likewise, when white Christians have ceased, Western Civilization will have ceased. There is nothing particularly wrong with Mexicans, Asians, and blacks, but don’t expect them to carry our heroes, myths, and traditions into the 22nd century. They have heroes, myths, and traditions of their own. No one else is going to maintain the culture we inherited from our ancestors. No one else is interested. Mexicans, Asians, and blacks are not going to be impressed by anyone waxing nostalgic about the good old days of Anglo-Protestantism, and they certainly could not care less about the Confederacy.

    Tom Fleming is correct: “Politicians in Washington tell us we should be loyal to what they call ‘the American way of life’; if that phrase means anything, however, it should refer to the customs, religion, and culture of the British and European settlers who came to the New World and replanted their traditions in fresh soil, where they yielded a rich harvest. If we are to trust the politicians, we should be loyal to the Christian religion, Western culture, European peoples, and the Anglo-American language, political institutions, and legal traditions. But all of these are under constant assault from the state and federal government agencies that are now demanding our loyalty. Christians cannot pray in the schools they pay for with their taxes or pretend that their traditions are equal (much less superior) to the religions and cultures of devil-worshipers, cannibals, polygamists, female-circumcisers, wife-burners, and child-sacrificers. Americans not only must bow to the superiority of non-Western cultures; they also have to import their representatives in such large numbers as to threaten the bare survival of their own people and culture.”

    Srdja Trifkovic writes: “The notion that there are lands, countries, and nations – specifically, in Europe and North America – that should be defended by virtue of being ‘ours’ seems both strange and subversive to the members of the elite. They share Samuel Huntington’s dictum that the core concepts of our civilization are supposed to be individualism, liberalism, constitutionalism, human rights, equality, liberty, the rule of law, democracy, free markets, the separation of church and state. They reject the suggestion that Christianity, the shared ethnic and linguistic origins of the European family, and that family’s common historical experiences are at all relevant…”

    John Jay, signer of the Declaration of Independence and first Chief Justice of the United States, said: “Providence has been pleased to give this one connected country to one united people, a people descended from the same ancestors, speaking the same language, professing the same religion, attached to the same principles of government, very similar in their manners and customs,” without whom a common, let alone a free, government could not have existed. We used to be a nation bound by common purpose, common religion, common language, common race. We shared the same culture, traditions, history, aspirations, interests, and roots. We held firmly to English concepts of the rule of law and the Puritan work ethic. But today we are in decline because there are too many Christians who think pagans are their equals. There are too many sons of the pioneers who think that all other people in the world are Americans in embryo. There are too many who see nothing wrong with selling our birthright for a heathen pledge to a heathen flag. To be an ‘American’ these days, one must be disinherited, deracinated, and have filled out the proper forms.

    “Without a common culture to unite us,” writes Mike Tuggle, “‘US citizens’ have no more in common than the random assortment of residents at a New Jersey extended stay motel. Who are we? What are our values? What will we fight for? The idea that we are now a ‘proposition nation’ inspired by the nobility of an abstract notion of universal brotherhood will work no better here than it did in the old Soviet Union… Love of one’s own people always trumps empty abstractions.”

    As Jared Taylor says, “We cannot expect people who have nothing in common with each other but the legal abstraction of citizenship to work or sacrifice for the common good.” We have nothing in common but a government that supplies us with worthless currency. We have become a giant mall for mankind and a polyglot boarding house for the world. There are a lot of people complaining about the harmful effects of multiculturalism and multilingualism. Well, folks, guess what leads to multilingualism and multiculturalism: multiracialism. Let’s not be those who hack at the branches rather than strike the root of the problem.

    In the British magazine Prospect, David Goodhart writes: “Thinking about the conflict between solidarity and diversity is another way of asking a question as old as human society itself: Who is my brother? With whom do I share mutual obligations? The traditional conservative Burkean view is that our affinities ripple out from our families and localities, to the nation and not very far beyond. That view is pitted against a liberal universalist one which sees us in some sense equally obligated to all human beings from Bolton to Burundi… [Burkeans] argue that we feel more comfortable with, and are readier to share with, and sacrifice for, those with whom we have shared histories and similar values. To put it bluntly – most of us prefer our own kind.”

    I’m sad to say that I was told by a Reformed pastor that God intends to remake the family. He quoted Matthew 10:34-36: “Whoever loves father or mother more than Me is not worthy of Me, and whoever loves son or daughter more than Me is not worthy of Me.” In fact, the Bible doesn’t say a word about remaking the family. Matthew 10:34-36 means exactly what it says – that the love for our families is not to be greater than our love for the Lord. Yet even the wicked care for their own according to the flesh. Even the infidel cherishes his family. What man is there among you who, if his son asks for bread, will give him a stone? Or if he asks for a fish, will give him a serpent? “But if anyone does not provide for his own, and especially for those of his household [referring to both an immediate and extended family], he has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever” (1 Tim. 5:8).

    Though the Bible tells us that God divided humanity into “nations,” which is a racial term, like the word natal, the neo-Babelist believes that geography rather than race determines citizenship. “Cross that boundary and you’re an American! Pass our multiple choice quiz and you’re an American!” They reason that the Old Testament people of God had a national identity, but today the church has only a spiritual identity. They don’t care about maintaining an ethnic balance, as our forefathers did, because they don’t care about the future of our people. They deny that our people (by blood) are our people! And the immediate assumption is that those of us who acknowledge the divisions that God Himself imposed on mankind want to keep the gospel to ourselves. This is ludicrous.

    As Douglas Wilson says, “You do not teach children to appreciate other cultures by teaching them to despise their own. A child who loves and honors his own mother is far more likely to appreciate that someone else loves and honors his own mother.” This is very true, although as Hermann Goering said, “When I hear the word culture, I reach for my pistol.” We’re talking primarily about race, which British Prime Minister Benjamin Disraeli called the key to world history. Contempt for your own race leads to contempt of all races, which is hatred of men and revolution against God.

    So national unity is inseparably bound to ethnic unity. Genesis 10:5 bears this out when it says that “the Gentiles were separated into their lands, everyone according to his language, according to their families, into their nations.” The Apostle Paul was a Cilician by birth, a Roman by citizenship, a Greek by language, and a Christian by faith. But how did he describe his nationality? Did he say that he belonged to a world race of Christians? No, he claimed to be “of the nation of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew of the Hebrews.” The Bible tells us that there will be multiple nations in heaven rather than one nation of the Christians of the world. There are nations in the earth, according to Psalm 102: “The nations will fear the name of the LORD, all the kings of the earth will revere your glory.” There are nations in heaven, according to Revelation 21: “The nations will walk by its light, and the kings of the earth will bring their splendor into it… The glory and honor of the nations [plural] will be brought into it.” These two passages sound the same.

    As Charles Hodge said: “The differences between the Caucasian, Mongolian, and negro races, which is known to have been as distinctly marked two or three thousand years before Christ as it is now…these varieties of race are not the effect of the blind operation of physical causes, but by those causes as intelligently guided by God for the accomplishment of some wise purpose… God fashions the different races of men in their peculiarities to suit them to the regions which they inhabit.”

    Alexander Solzhenitsyn believed “that the disappearance of nations would have impoverished us no less than if all men had become alike, with one personality and one face. Nations are the wealth of mankind, its collective personalities; the very least of them wears its own special colours and bears within itself a special facet of divine intention.”

    As John Vinson says, “Nationhood is not an arbitrary human arrangement, but a principle of divine order. The separation of vastly different peoples helps reduce conflict and promote fruitful diversity. Massive uncontrolled immigration defeats God’s order. Love and compassion fare poorly in chaos – and also in the tyranny that follows chaos.”

    John Calvin said it well: “Just as there are in a military camp separate lines for each platoon and section, men are placed on the earth so that each nation may be content with its own boundaries. [In this manner,] God, by his providence, reduces to order that which is confused.”

    Clyde Wilson tells us that “harmony among men is a product not of uniformity but of genuine, mutually respectful diversity… [R]espect for other cultures, and the peaceful coexistence of cultures, are only possible among people who are themselves conscious participants in their own, necessarily particularist culture. There is no universal culture. How could there be, when there is no such thing as a universal man?”

    Even Alexander Hamilton, who was not a Southerner, said: “The safety of a republic depends on the energy of a common national sentiment; on uniformity of principles and habits…” It would be best “to render the people of this country as homogeneous as possible,” for this “must tend as much as any other circumstance to the permanency of their union and prosperity… The influx of foreigners must, therefore, tend to…corrupt the national spirit…”

    From one blood God created all men. Does this mean that all races should be allowed to intermarry, simply because they can? The races of Seth and Cain intermarried in Genesis 6, simply because they could. God was so displeased with this miscegenation that He destroyed the world because of it.

    Ken Ham, author of the book One Blood, says there is no such thing as interracial marriage because there is no such thing as biological race. There is only a race of Christians and a race of non-Christians. The great R.L. Dabney affirmed “that ‘God made of one blood all nations of men to dwell under the whole heavens,’” but he said that nothing except amalgamation or subordination “can prevent the rise of that instinctive antipathy of race, which, history shows, always arises between opposite races in proximity.”

    R.J. Rushdoony comments on 2 Cor. 6:14: “Unequal yoking plainly means mixed marriages between believers and unbelievers is clearly forbidden. But Deuteronomy 22:10 not only forbids unequal yoking by inference, and as a case law, but also unequal yoking generally. This means that an unequal marriage between believers or between unbelievers is wrong. Man was created in the image of God (Gen. 1:26), and woman is the reflected image of God in man, and from man (1 Cor. 11:1-12; Gen. 2:18, 21-23). ‘Helpmeet’ means a reflection or a mirror, an image of man, indicating that a woman must have something religiously and culturally in common with her husband. The burden of the law is thus against inter-religious, inter-racial, and inter-cultural marriages, in that they normally go against the very community which marriage is designed to establish. Unequal yoking means more than marriage. In society at large it means the enforced integration of various elements which are not congenial. Unequal yoking is in no realm productive of harmony; rather, it aggravates the differences and delays the growth of the different elements toward a Christian harmony and association.”

    God did not even want his twelve tribes to intermarry, even though they all had the same religion. T he case of the daughters of Zelophehad in Numbers 36 leads to this decree: “Let them marry whom they think best, but they may marry only within the family of their father’s tribe. So the inheritance of the children of Israel shall not change hands from tribe to tribe, for every one of the children of Israel shall keep the inheritance of the tribe of his fathers.” Modern Christians, thoroughly immersed in the cult of Martin Luther King, have no explanation for why God would restrict marriage between believers. Trust me, I’ve asked them.

    Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and Moses all married close kin. When Abraham commanded his chief slave, “I want you to swear by the LORD, the God of heaven and the God of earth, that you will not get a wife for my son from the daughters of the Canaanites, among whom I am living, but will go to my country and my own relatives and get a wife for my son Isaac,” he did not mention a word about theological belief or godly fidelity. His relatives were pagans! Still, he exclusively limited the search to kith and kin.

    Culture is by definition exclusive. (The word multiculturalism is an oxymoron.) A race, if it wishes to preserve its culture and its life, must be exclusive and homogeneous as well. If not, the desire to persevere is lost. A sure sign that this has happened is when very few children are being born, which is the case today.

    Richard Weaver writes of Yankee tyranny: “The instrumentality of union, with its united strength and its subordination of the parts, is an irresistible temptation to the power-hungry of every generation.” Did you get that? The parts must be subordinated (and eventually dissolved) in order for the whole to be ascendant. This is exactly what we hear from the race-mixers, and our response to them is identical to the response of Alexander Stephens: “If centralism is ultimately to prevail; if our entire system of free Institutions as established by our common ancestors is to be subverted, and an Empire is to be established in their stead; if that is to be the last scene of the great tragic drama now being enacted: then, be assured, that we of the South will be acquitted, not only in our own consciences, but in the judgment of mankind, of all responsibility for so terrible a catastrophe, and from all guilt of so great a crime against humanity.” It’s not surprising that in the 1950s Weaver wrote in National Review: “‘Integration’ and ‘Communization’ are, after all, pretty closely synonymous. In light of what is happening today, the first may be little more than a euphemism for the second.” Martin Luther King was a Communist, and he wrote in the New York Post in 1958: “I’m sure integration will lead to interracial marriage.”

    “Historically,” writes Pastor Matt Trewhella, “all the states in America had laws outlawing the marriage of blacks and whites. In the mid-1800’s, certain states began allowing interracial marriages or miscegenation as long as those marrying received a license from the state… Black’s Law Dictionary points to this historical fact when it defines ‘marriage license’ as, ‘A license or permission granted by public authority to persons who intend to intermarry.’ ‘Intermarry’ is defined in Black’s Law Dictionary as, ‘Miscegenation; mixed or interracial marriages’… Not long after these licenses were issued, some states began requiring all people who marry to obtain a marriage license. In 1923, the Federal Government established the Uniform Marriage and Marriage License Act… By 1929, every state in the Union had adopted marriage license laws.” Just allow that to sink in. Marriage was a function of the church until the state got involved, and the state only got involved to fulfill the illegal 14th Amendment, which was a result of Lincoln’s subjugation of the South. Now, here is where the dominoes begin to fall.

    According to the New York Times, “In 1948, when the California Supreme Court threw out the state’s law against interracial marriage, 31 of the 48 states had similar laws. According to a 1958 Gallup poll, only 4% of whites approved of marriage between blacks and whites. Then, in 1967, the U.S. Supreme Court overturned state anti-miscegenation statutes, declaring that race-mixing is a constitutional right. That case, Loving vs. Virginia, was brought by Mildred and Richard Loving, a married couple convicted of miscegenation in 1959 before a trial judge who declared, “Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with his arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix.” The Lovings were given a choice of spending a year in jail or leaving the state for 25 years. They left, but they sued, ultimately leading to the Supreme Court ruling of 1967. In 1968, a Gallup poll found that Americans, by more than 3 to 1, still disapproved of marriages between whites and blacks. The 2003 Gallup poll shows that 70% of whites now approve. Additionally, 66% of white respondents said they would have no objection if a child or grandchild chose a black spouse.

    William Eskridge, a Yale law professor, says, “views on same-sex marriage will follow the same path as those on interracial marriage.” Sadly, he is correct. Christians with such flexible principles will not bother to mount a sustained defense of marriage at this late hour.

    Many Christians would like to connect sodomite marriage to that other great act of judicial tyranny, Roe vs. Wade. They forget about the Loving vs. Virginia decision which outlawed the ban against miscegenation, and they forget about it precisely because they think it was just. My friend Greg McDivitt pointed out to me that the Massachusetts court cited Loving 25 times in their decision legalizing sodomite marriage but mentioned Roe in passing only four times. The very heart of the decision was based on the illegal Fourteenth Amendment, which was cited 13 times. So if you’re looking for a logical progression, it is to be found in the religion of Equality: citizenship was granted to former slaves, therefore interracial marriages may not be forbidden, therefore sodomite marriages may not be forbidden.

    I said that two-thirds of white respondents to polls say they would not object if a child or grandchild chose a black spouse. But this is not what they desire, of course. Parents invariably and instinctively want their children to find spouses who are similar. I’m unaware of a single exception. Let us resolve to obey the fifth commandment, and let us hear no more from pastors who encourage children to disobey their parents. Let us heed the warning of G.K. Chesterton: “Don’t ever take a fence down, until you know the reason it was put up.”

    “Since liberalism became a kind of official party line,” recognized Richard Weaver, “we have been enjoined against saying things about races, religions, or national groups, for, after all, there is no categorical statement without its implication of value, and values begin divisions among men. We must not define, subsume, or judge; we must rather rest on the periphery and display ‘sensibility toward the cultural expression of all lands and peoples.’ This is a process of emasculation.” He said that to deny what he called “the continuum of race” is to dishonor our forefathers and reduce ourselves to the level of animals. Russell Kirk said the same thing: “To presume that a mystic ‘equality’ entitles the mass of mankind to tinker at pleasure with society, to play with it as a toy, to exercise their petty ingenuity upon it, is to reduce mankind to the only state of life in which anything resembling equality of condition actually prevails: savagery.” Weaver continues: “The ancient feeling of brotherhood carries obligations of which equality knows nothing. It calls for respect and protection, for brotherhood is status in family, and family is by nature hierarchical… It is eloquent of that loss of respect for logic to which we owe so many disasters that the French Revolution made equality and fraternity co-ordinates… How much of the frustration of the modern world proceeds from starting with the assumption that all are equal, finding that this cannot be so, and then having to realize that one can no longer fall back on the bond of fraternity!… Nothing is more manifest than that as this social distance has diminished and all groups have moved nearer equality, suspicion and hostility have increased. In the present world there is little of trust and less of loyalty. People do not know what to expect of one another. Leaders will not lead, and servants will not serve…”

    We equated equality and fraternity. We lost our social bond, and egotism set in. Trust and loyalty faded. We syncretized race, culture, and religion, and we became imperialists and collectivists. The bureaucratic hierarchy of socialism is necessary in a Jacobin world, Weaver said, because equality can never truly be attained. So rather than let society collapse, the social engineers will take an unnatural hierarchy to a natural one. Countries with diverse populations require authoritarian governments as the only alternative to anarchy. However, as Weaver says, the “basis of an organic social order is fraternity uniting parts that are distinct.” And this is kinism in a nutshell. It is not only for whites; it is for all people in the world, and it has as its ultimate goal the unified purpose of mankind, which is to glorify God.

    Weaver refers to the one and the many, which is a concept we first discover in the Bible. There is one God but a plurality of persons. There is one body of Christ, but it has many members. So let us hear no more about “the mystery of the gospel” from those who seek to amalgamate through miscegenation. There is no mystery at all in “the one and the many” if the “many” no longer exists. If all members of the body of Christ suddenly turn into the liver, can we say that a body remains? Is abolishing races (which are said to not exist by these people) the proper way to promote racial harmony? Is it hatred for the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost to refuse to merge into one undifferentiated God? Unity in diversity is a mystery that we are only able to grasp through the Spirit of God, and we will be punished if we disregard His work of creation. God is judging America today and decimating our race because we care so little about preserving his created order. If we do not repent, He will take from us what we have and give it to another nation who will obey his law.

    To again quote John Vinson: “The man who claims to love everyone equally will have little left to give anyone in particular, and no one really will benefit from his love. Nationality and kinship are God’s way of assigning specific and limited responsibilities to men, so that they may focus their energies for the benefit of their respective societies. The final result is improvement for all humanity… The Christian can affirm that generalities such as ‘mankind’ are real, just as particulars such as nations and individuals are real. Eastern religion denies the real world by denying the reality of particulars. A number of modern philosophies say that particulars are real and generalities are not. Only Christianity strikes the proper balance, consistent with the world we see. If men lose sight of this balance, they will err to the side of ignoring nationality and endorsing world government, or to the side of deifying their nation and despising all others. God envisions the world as a great symphony. Different peoples play different parts, all contributing to one divine harmony.”

    “Equality may exist only among slaves,” said Aristotle. “Equality is a slogan based on envy,” said Alexis de Tocqueville. “It signifies in the heart of every republican: ‘Nobody is going to occupy a place higher than I.’” As R. Carter Pittman said, “It is inequality that gives enlargement to religion, to intellect, to energy, to virtue, to love and to wealth. Equality of intellect stabilizes mediocrity. Equality of wealth makes all men poor. Equality of religion destroys all creeds. Equality of energy renders all men sluggards. Equality of virtue suspends all men without the gates of Heaven. Equality of love stultifies every manly passion, destroys every family altar and mongrelizes the races of men. Equality homogenizes so that cream does not rise to the top. It puts the eagle in the hen house so that he may no longer soar.”

    Michael Andrew Grissom warns us: “Until the White man of the South learns to draw a line over which none dare step, he can expect only additional abuse… And this defeat of the West will have been accomplished, not by superior strength or civilization…not by the ‘forces of history,’ but simply by the feckless generosity and moral cowardice of the West itself.”

    Kevin MacDonald affirms that whites are now “a declining, apologetic people, ashamed of their history and not sure even of their claim to lands they have occupied for centuries.” Americans have been lulled to sleep. As Srdja Trifkovic writes in Chronicles, they do not realize that the invaders of their country have purposed “to partake in their wealth, know their women, and eventually take over their lands – and they nurture a healthy contempt for a society willing to grant them every indulgence without a fight… Both the loss of the will to define and defend one’s native soil and the loss of the desire to procreate send an alluring signal to the teeming favellas and kazbahs: Come, for no Western nation has the guts to shed blood – alien or its own – in the name of its own survival.” But when our declining race learns to love itself once again, “Communities linked to their native soil and bonded by kinship, memory, language, faith, and myth would be revived, and hostile alien ghettos would be expelled. And, in adversity, the eyes of men would be lifted, once again, to Heaven.”

    In Acts 17:26, Paul says that God sets boundaries among the nations “so that they should seek the Lord, in the hope that they might grope for Him and find Him.” But today the curse of Hosea 7 has come true: “Ephraim has mixed himself among the peoples; Ephraim is a cake unturned. Aliens have devoured his strength, but he does not know it…” Deuteronomy 28 tells us what awaits us if we do not turn from this path: “The alien who is among you shall rise higher and higher above you, and you shall come down lower and lower. He shall lend to you, but you shall not lend to him; he shall be the head, and you shall be the tail. Moreover all these curses shall come upon you and pursue and overtake you, until you are destroyed, because you did not obey the voice of the LORD your God, to keep His commandments and His statutes which He commanded you… The LORD will bring a nation against you from afar, from the end of the earth, as swift as the eagle flies, a nation whose language you will not understand, a nation of fierce countenance, which does not respect the elderly nor show favor to the young. And they shall eat the increase of your livestock and the produce of your land, until you are destroyed; they shall not leave you grain or new wine or oil, or the increase of your cattle or the offspring of your flocks, until they have destroyed you. They shall besiege you at all your gates until your high and fortified walls, in which you trust, come down throughout all your land; and they shall besiege you at all your gates throughout all your land which the LORD your God has given you… You shall be left few in number, whereas you were as the stars of heaven in multitude, because you would not obey the voice of the LORD your God.” Let us make the prayer of Lamentations chapter 5 our own:

    Remember, O LORD, what has come upon us;
    Look, and behold our reproach!
    Our inheritance has been turned over to aliens,
    And our houses to foreigners.
    Our fathers sinned and are no more,
    But we bear their iniquities.
    Servants rule over us;
    There is none to deliver us from their hand.

    We have ignored the biblical Law of the Stranger. According to Rushdoony, “the term stranger has reference to someone residing within the country who is of another tribe, nation, or race. The reference is not to travellers passing through.” Now read Deut. 17:15: “you may not set a foreigner over you, who is not your brother.” This is entirely a racial statement, and the implications for the integrated society are staggering.

    Ernest van den Haag wrote in National Review in 1965: One “need not believe that one’s own ethnic group, or any ethnic group, is superior to others…in order to wish one’s country to continue to be made up of the same ethnic strains in the same proportions as before. And, conversely, the wish not to see one’s country overrun by groups one regards as alien need not be based on feelings of superiority or ‘racism’… the wish to preserve one’s identity and the identity of one’s nation requires no justification…any more than the wish to have one’s own children, and to continue one’s family through them need be justified or rationalized by a belief that they are superior to the children of others.”

    According to Rushdoony, “Every social order institutes its own program of separation or segregation… The claim of equality and integration is thus a pretext to subvert an older or existing form of social order… But integration and equality are myths; they disguise a new segregation and a new equality… Segregation, separation, or quarantine, whichever name is used, is inescapable in any society… From the days of the Assyrians, who moved nations and peoples about to homogenize their empire, to the 20 th century, [attempts at integration] have been failures. People do not inter-marry unless a common faith, culture, and standard brings them together. Then, they cannot be kept apart… Where there are religious and social reasons against mixed marriages, nothing can further such marriages as long as the faith and the society are strong. If these factors are invalid or disappear through disbelief, nothing can prevent integration in the short or long run.”

    Now, this underscores the utter failure of the modern Christian who has adopted the pluralism of the Republican Party. “The real problem with the religious right,” says Sam Francis, “is that, in the long run, its religious vehicle won’t carry it home. If it ever ended abortion, restored school prayer, outlawed sodomy and banned pornography, I suspect most of its followers would simply declare victory and retire. But having accomplished all of that, the Christian right would have done absolutely nothing to strip the federal government of the power it has seized throughout this century [or] prevent the inundation of the country by anti-Western immigrants, stop the cultural and racial dispossession of the historic people, or resist the absorption of the American nation into a multicultural and multiracial globalist regime. Indeed, the Christian Right for the most part doesn’t care about these issues or even perceive them as issues, and in so far as it does, it not infrequently lines up on the wrong side of them.”

    Let’s begin to correct this by admitting the truth. Whites don’t want to live around blacks, browns, reds, yellows, or any other color of the rainbow. They never have, and they never will. Get used to it. If you really want to make the world a better place and foster a loving environment, learn how to work within these limitations rather than attempt to re-engineer human nature.

    As Jared Taylor says: “Most white Americans can think of any number of communities or neighborhoods in which they might want to live. Not one is likely to have a non-white majority. Likewise, most whites cannot name a single non-white community in which they could bear to live. Furthermore, if one were to ask whites what countries they might move to if given a choice, almost all will mention a European country, Canada, Australia, or New Zealand. All are white… Not even the most deluded white liberals live in Harlem or Watts or South Central Los Angeles, or in any of a thousand other neighborhoods that have been transformed by non-whites. Despite their pronouncements about the vital importance and desirability of integration, virtually no white is willing to take the most obvious step towards making it happen: buy a house in a black neighborhood… People have every right to expect their children and their children’s children to be able to grow up and walk in the ways of their ancestors. They have a powerful, natural desire that their grandchildren be like them—that they speak the same language, sing the same songs, tell the same stories, pray to the same God, take pride in the same past, hope the same hopes, love the same nation, and honor the same traditions. The crucial elements of peoplehood cannot be preserved in the face of a flood of aliens, especially when the central institutions of the nation itself preach fashionable falsehoods about the equivalence of all races, cultures, and peoples… Our country has established a gigantic system of laws, diversity commissions, racial watchdog groups, EEO officers, and outreach committees as part of a huge, clanking machine to regulate and try to control racial diversity—this dangerous, volatile thing that is supposed to be such a source of strength. People are so exhausted by this source of strength that they run from it the first chance they get. Families, churches, clubs, and private parties—which are not yet regulated by the government—tend to be racially homogeneous. Nothing could be more obvious: Diversity of race or tribe or language or religion are the main reasons people kill each other on a large scale. Diversity—within the same territory—is strife, not strength.” Those who seek amalgamation are enemies of mankind, because violence will only increase as a result of their folly. This is precisely why Thomas Jefferson said: “[W]hen freed, the Negro is to be removed beyond the reach of mixture… Justice is in one scale, and self-preservation in the other.”

    In conclusion, Americans used to consider racial purity to be very important. In fact, the first naturalization law in American history confined citizenship to whites. But t he cosmopolitan state has redefined citizenship, changing it from an ethno-racial claim to a matter of political designation, from a real nation to a proposition nation. Today, the nation is defined by adherence to ideology rather than by descent. Today, the rights of citizenship are based not on blood but on the ability to pay taxes. Edward Gibbon wrote that Rome sank “into a vile and wretched populace, which must, in a few generations, have been totally extinguished, if it had not been constantly recruited by the manumission of slaves and the influx of strangers.” This is our trouble today, and like Rome, the empire of America will not survive. Nations are built on blood; empires are built on ideas. Therefore, it is not true that a Southerner is anyone who believes in Jeffersonian democracy or waves the Confederate flag.

    Whites are now in the minority in California and Texas. Whites are a minority in Florida public schools. Whites will be a minority in the state of Georgia in just 16 years. Nationwide, whites are projected to be a minority in the year 2050. Friends, the time to do something about this is not in 2040. The time is now.

    “In our not-too-distant agrarian past,” writes Mark Godfrey, “the American innately understood that the possibility of existence was afforded by three things: tradition (which is inherited knowledge as common possession), community (which is a shared, regulated intercourse with one’s kinsmen), and an intimate, symbiotic relationship with the land. These are the common blessings of general providence, and they are available to all men. These are the pillars of kinism… In our haste to homogenize the world according to humanistic and materialistic (and ultimately classically pagan) standards of culture, we have forgotten the very integrity of culture, how it inheres in a people in the form of basic traits and tendencies…”

    Folks, our nation is white and Christian. If it ceases to be, it is no longer our nation. If our political parties fail to support our race and our religion, they are worthless.

    I want to close today by reciting a poem by Rudyard Kipling called The Stranger:

    The Stranger within my gate,
    He may be true or kind,
    But he does not talk my talk—
    I cannot feel his mind.
    I see the face and the eyes and the mouth,
    But not the soul behind.

    The men of my own stock
    They may do ill or well,
    But they tell the lies I am wonted to,
    They are used to the lies I tell.
    And we do not need interpreters
    When we go to buy and sell.

    The Stranger within my gates,
    He may be evil or good,
    But I cannot tell what powers control—
    What reasons sway his mood;
    Nor when the gods of his far-off land
    Shall repossess his blood.

    The men of my own stock,
    Bitter bad they may be,
    But, at least, they hear the things I hear,
    And see the things I see;
    And whatever I think of them and their likes
    They think of the likes of me.

    This was my father’s belief
    And this is also mine:
    Let the corn be all one sheaf—
    And the grapes be all one vine,
    Ere our children’s teeth are set on edge
    By bitter bread and wine.

    Source
    News Source: Kinism

    Related Stories
  • So...What Is A Fascist?
  • What Is a Nation?
  • What is The European New Right?

  • Comments

    Entire site copyright ©2007-2008 European Americans United.
    Opinions expressed herein are not necessarily those of EAU,
    the editors, or any other entity. Some clearly marked materials are
    parodies or fiction. By submitting material you grant European
    Americans United a non-transferable 100 year non-exclusive license
    to use the submitted material.
    The following copyright pertains to the news site software only:
    Copyright ©Copyright (C) 2007-2013
    Powered by Esselbach Storyteller CMS System Version 1.8
    Licensed to: European Americans United