This (part 1, part 2) is well worth reading, although a theocratic Kinist such as myself rejects the notion that "Natural law is therefore the fulcrum on which rests the case that immigration is genocide." Natural law may at times be theoretically useful, but it is utterly useless in understanding our duties in covenant with God. If we all understood every detail of natural law but had no special revelation, we would be utterly lost. Nevertheless, here are some good quotes from the article: "Within a century or two, perhaps less, the peoples of the West, those whose ancestry derives from the Nordic and Alpine subraces of Europe, will have ceased to exist as a cohesive entity. How quickly the end will come depends on immigration rates, differential birthrates among ethnic groups, and mixed-race childbearing rates. But the final outcome is fixed so long as we adhere to our present course… And yet, frank discussion of the outcome, the submergence of the race that produced the world’s first, and perhaps only technological civilization, is usually silenced with words like ‘racist,’ ‘bigot,’ and ‘xenophobe’… Universalism is altruism practiced without discrimination of kinship, acquaintanceship, shared values, or propinquity in time or space… The same people who have always denounced as an extremist lunatic anyone who warned about ‘the racial dilution of white America,’ are now proposing, not just the dilution of white America, but its complete elimination. Race-blind ideology has led directly to the most race-conscious—and indeed genocidal—proposal in the history of the world… The destruction of an entire population is, in fact, genocide by the definitions of the UN Genocide Convention, which defines genocide as ‘the destruction, in whole or in part, of an ethnic, racial or national group. The acts so defined include...the destruction of the conditions of life necessary for the physical existence of the group’… Because economic inequality between groups inevitably produces envy, stable societies are almost always homogeneous. Multi-ethnic and multicultural societies live on the edge of dissolution. In such cases, the role of government turns to conflict management… There is no historical reason to believe that governments based on principles of individual liberty will survive the disappearance of Western peoples… Just as giving food to people who cannot feed themselves simply hastens an inevitable population crash, bringing third world people into the West simply hastens the transformation of the West into an extension of the third world."

The original E Pluribus Unum seal had six symbols in the center:  the rose (England), thistle (Scotland), harp (Ireland), fleur-de-lis (France), lion (Holland), and an imperial two-headed eagle (Germany). These were the countries which contributed to the United States. Around these central symbols were 13 shields representing the 13 independent and sovereign states claiming old-fashioned (non-absolute) unity. Of course, now the bastard children of Lincoln have completely removed the concept of statehood in E Pluribus Unum and replaced it with races.

"The ancient dream of one world characterized Babel, Assyria, and Chaldea, and nations were broken, populations were shuffled to break down national ties, and young men of conquered countries were trained to high office to help hold the loyalties of their people and give a cosmopolitan and international character to the empire. The diversity of leadership and the shifting of populations would lead to a ‘melting pot’ society whereby the unified concept would take root." ~ R.J. Rushdoony, Thy Kingdom Come: Studies in Daniel and Revelation

"To reject stereotypes is thus to reject the wisdom of our fathers… [T]he healthiest societies are often those considered to be the most racist… And if anyone hates the familiar it is impossible to love that which is different… We are told that we should live in a color-blind, racially-integrated, mulatto world. This is the philosophy of Babel not Zion… [T]he church is to make disciples of all nations, not make the local church look like a United Colors of Benetton commercial. If members of different racial groups spontaneously come together for worship, however unlikely this may be, fine. But to turn this into a goal we should be striving toward is without any biblical foundation."

God Himself is a segregationist. John Calvin writes, in his commentary on Genesis 35:11: "’I am God Almighty.’ God here, as elsewhere, proclaims his own faithfulness. He then promises that he will cause Jacob to increase and multiply, not only into one nation, but into a multitude of nations. When he speaks of ‘a nation,’ he no doubt means that the offspring of Jacob should become sufficiently numerous to acquire the body and the name of one great people. But that follows concerning ‘nations’ may appear absurd; for if we wish it to refer to the nations which, by gratuitous adoption, are inserted into the race of Abraham, the form of expression is improper: but if it be understood of sons by natural descent, then it would be a curse rather than a blessing, that the Church, the safety of which depends on its unity, should be divided into many distinct nations. But to me it appears that the Lord, in these words, comprehended both these benefits; for when, under Joshua, the people was apportioned into tribes, as if the seed of Abraham was propagated into so many distinct nations; yet the body was not thereby divided; it is called an assembly of nations, for this reason, because in connection with that distinction a sacred unity yet flourished. The language also is not improperly extended to the Gentiles, who, having been before dispersed, are collected into one congregation by the bond of faith; and although they were not born of Jacob according to the flesh; yet, because faith was to them the commencement of a new birth, and the covenant of salvation, which is the seed of spiritual birth, flowed from Jacob, all believers are rightly reckoned among his sons, according to the declaration, ‘I have constituted thee a father of many nations.’"

And yet some foolish Christians still believe that 1 Peter 2:9 is an adequate refutation of Kinism merely because it refers to an "holy nation" in the singular. Their reasoning is that under the old covenant, circumcision was a physical and covenantal mark on a particular people. But under the new covenant, those who believe the promises to Abraham are Abraham’s seed. And if all people are eventually Abraham’s seed, there are no more particular peoples, or what are called nations, only an absolute body of Christians in the world: an holy nation. This is why Ken Ham, whose silly book, One Blood, is now online, created the graphic below. The most astounding thing about it is that 2,000 years passed before Christian race-mixers enlightened the church with their novel interpretations.


If Galatians 3:28 is the most-abused verse in Scripture, perhaps 1 Peter 2:9 is number two. In the first place, Peter names his audience in 1:1: "the [Greco-Roman] strangers scattered throughout [Asia Minor]." He clearly never intended his epistle to be a universal polemic for miscegenation or erasing of borders. There’s nothing wrong with applying his teaching to the church at large, but let it be done in context. The words "holy nation" are preceded by the words "royal priesthood," and this is one large clue to the context. Under the new covenant, there is no longer need of a priest to make intercession with God. We are now all "priest-kings" like Melchizedek because, as it says in verse 5, we ourselves are the temple. The JFB Commentary is very helpful: "There are two Greek words for ‘temple’; hieron (the sacred place), the whole building, including the courts wherein the sacrifice was killed; and naos (the dwelling, namely, of God), the inner shrine wherein God peculiarly manifested Himself, and where, in the holiest place, the blood of the slain sacrifice was presented before Him. All believers alike, and not merely ministers, are now the dwelling of God (and are called the ’naos,’ Greek, not the hieron) and priests unto God (Re 1:6). The minister is not, like the Jewish priest (Greek, hiercus), admitted nearer to God than the people, but merely for order’s sake leads the spiritual services of the people." The New Testament never refers to ministers of the gospel as sacerdotal priests. Therefore, all Christians comprise an holy "nation" because they all have equal standing before the throne of grace. They are called a "nation" here because they are antitypical to Israel, meaning that of which the sacerdotal nation of Israel typified. Why is this so hard for neo-Babelists to understand? This is what Paul meant in Romans 11 where he refers to Hebrews and Gentiles as branches that are grafted, cut out, and grafted into the olive tree again. They comprise one body of believers (one olive tree), but it is a metaphor that does not necessarily imply unity in the flesh. Our fathers had no trouble understanding any of this.

Here’s a Reformed seminarian who writes: "There is no more nationalism or ‘blood and soil’ after baptism… America has no ‘natural’ in itself. It is a transplant nation… As the Church takes priority, nations will fade into the background… [B]orders will be of less importance." He denies, in the Bible, "any emphasis on national boundaries, other than the Nation-sanctuary of Israel." Therefore, "the kinists are simply Judaizers. They hold on to the carnal world and have no understanding of the role of the Mosaic law nor of Israel as priest-nation. They are biblically incompetent. They also don’t seem to understand the orthodox doctrine of the Trinity, since the three persons are co-extensive with the one essence. The persons of the Trinity indwell one another in harmony. This is most certainly NOT what the kinists teach in regard to humanity, and so it would seem that the analogy shows them to be functional tri-theists (aka pagans)." He says something else that seems rather innocuous at first glance: "the Church is the new people of God." But you have to know what he means by this in the context of what else he has said. It is pure evil, and it is hatred for Christ and the people of Christ.

T. Robert Ingram was an Episcopal minister in the South during the 1960s. He wrote a book called Essays on Segregation in which he defends the historic Christian faith. Here are some quotes:


No, the question of so-called "integration" or "segregation" is one exclusively of the nature of the Church, or, for those who cannot see the kingdom of God, the structure of Society, and its relation to Heaven as a future state of being. It involves not only the relationship of each individual to the Church, but of various churches to each other and to the whole. Apart from this consideration, the very word "integration" loses all meaning. The only thing involving two or more persons that can be thought of as "integrated" or "formed into one whole" is the Church. Perhaps a man and wife can be thought of as being "integrated" into a family, and yet I have never heard the term so used even recognizing the phrase "one flesh"!

The real question debated under the heading of integration therefore is the knotty old one formally called the doctrine of the Church. What is the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church? How is it recognized in this world? Why has it been necessary in formal doctrine to distinguish between the Church Militant here on earth, the Church Triumphant, the Church at Rest and the Mystical Body of Christ? The Reformers spoke of the visible Church as opposed to the invisible church, probably labeling old categories with new tags. Since "integration" is a word so intimately bound up with the idea of "oneness," the crux of the argument must lie in what men think of as the nature of Christian unity.

It may be agreed right off that for those that can see only this world, whether claiming to be Christian or not, the passion for unity in and of the world must become a veritable obsession. It may be admitted that an overriding unity of creation is necessary to human existence as food and air. As long as that final unity is consciously or subconsciously seen in the One who made all that is, then the separations, diversities, distinctions and differences which abound in creation become not an unendurable frustration, but a boundless vista of goodness and peace. But if all talk of God is only a façade of pietism, and if the only thing that matters really is this world, and the Christian hope of the world to come is better described in the famous Marxist sneer as "pie in the sky"; if all the direction and purpose of life is found in this world, and if all that matters is improvement and ultimately even perfection of this world, then unity, too, must be achieved in terms of this world. Hence, integration—a plan for another step in the unifying process of the diverse parts of society. Integration is not an end in itself, but a supposed step toward the end of achieving heaven on earth. Integrationists, therefore, like all utopians everywhere in all times are wildly determined to remove from their path all who would obstruct their progress toward ultimate unity and heaven on earth…

The Christian false front on worldliness has no effect on the merchandise inside. Inside is the same old stock in trade of political ruthlessness as it develops when religionists want to take the kingdom of heaven by violence. Heaven on earth must present perfection and perfection requires unity, just as God is a Unity. Unity means universal submission to a single sovereignty, and unity in and of the world means universal submission to a single world government. In such a system the disunity of two distinct human races living side by side but in totally distinct cultural communities is intolerable. It is as intolerable as the divisions among the churches over which the devotees of ecumenicity wail so endlessly and plaintively…

It remains to consider what is actually described by "integration." What is the condition or conditions that have been fulfilled when we can take a deep breath and say we are now integrated? Is it sufficient that black children sit next to white children in school? Clearly not. The aims of the "integration" movement are plainly listed as steps without end. There is to be a removal of all recognition of any difference between Negro and Caucasian…

Unity, socialism, and the world, then, are the real issues involved in what is called "integration."

"Christian" music encouraging miscegenation. Lyrics here.

A friend told me about a book by Anne-Marie Slaughter called The Idea That is America: Keeping Faith With Our Values in a Dangerous World. If America is an idea then why aren’t families merely ideas? Perhaps your wife is a dream and your children little propositions. And how does a person have faith in a subjective value?

Cambria has written about this evil affliction here. "Since one cannot become a pure idea in one generation, Americans have a history of heroic achievements and chivalric deeds. But all such heroic achievements and chivalric deeds sprang from our European roots and our connection to the British nation. As we gradually disconnected from our European roots and became enamoured of the prostitute called the ‘American Idea,’ we lost touch with the loyalties and passions that make a particular people a nation instead of a blasphemous idea. A nation has one race, one faith, and one culture."

It’s worth noting here that the Declaration of Independence was against the king, not parliament, which is not mentioned in it and which had no authority over the states. People tend to consider the king or president to be synonymous with the country, but that wasn’t the case then or now.

More from Rushdoony: "Marriages fail too easily if the partners do not view themselves as blood and one flesh. That’s why couples will divorce and then fight over custody of the children. They’ll part with the one that is not [immediately] blood-related, but they’ll fight to their last dollar in lawyer fees to retain custody of the little ones that are blood-related… Love is all about blood." He also points out that the neo-Babelist interpretation of Galatians 3:28, the most-abused verse in Scripture, confuses the political with the eternal. "Despite the ‘oneness’ in Christ eternally, there is still bond and free, Jew and Greek, and male and female." It does not "alter the distinctions of race, gender, and economics."

"The de-feminized, de-Christianized female is the most dangerous creature on the face of the earth. She has all the power that comes with femininity but lacks any of the moral restraints that Christianity gave to her. Lady Macbeth is rightly regarded as a monster when she asks the spirits of darkness to ‘unsex me here’ and later gives the faltering Macbeth an impromptu pep talk that makes one’s blood run cold:


I have given suck, and know
How tender ‘tis to love the babe that milks me;
I would, while it was smiling in my face,
Have pluck’d my nipple from his boneless gums
And dash’d the brains out, had I so sworn as you
Have done to this.

"The modern Lady Macbeths are fond of saying that a man wants only one thing of them… Of course he only wants one thing; what else can she offer?"

Eric Rudolph, the abortion clinic bomber, writes about such women in this very good piece on feminism. I was surprised to find that he’s such a good writer.

In Dostoyevsky there are only two choices: Christ or the abyss. But Walter Scott is superior, says Cambria, because "All of life cannot be a film noir where one infers the light because there must be an opposite of darkness." "The formalists in both the Protestant and the Catholic camps are always trying to get us to shun humanity in favor of philosophical systems, with a Christian flavor to be sure, but without Christ’s humanity or our own."