The Futility of Godless Politics

The Futility of Godless Politics

O God, we have heard with our ears,
    our fathers have told us,
what deeds you performed in their days,
    in the days of old:
you with your own hand drove out the nations,
    but them you planted;
you afflicted the peoples,
    but them you set free;
for not by their own sword did they win the land,
    nor did their own arm save them,
but your right hand and your arm,
    and the light of your face,
    for you delighted in them.

Psalm 44:1-3


The natural man, so full of corruption, sin and selfishness cannot win back his nationhood or family through instruments of his own creation. The White Christian man must progress with God as his sole, ultimate purpose in life – his anchor and reference point for all things; It is only then as the Israelite’s recount:  Will we rise to defeat the evils and injustice of our day. Through you we push down our foes; through your name we tread down those who rise up against us. For not in my bow do I trust, nor can my sword save me. But you have saved us from our foes and have put to shame those who hate us.” (Ps 44:5-7)

Historically; The White Christian man was revered, respected and feared among the most powerful nations of the world – this was parallel with his overwhelming religious fervour – Christianity, that old-time religion lead him in temperance, good family and justice to a status of strength; imbued by the blessing of God almighty. The 20th century saw the church fall into apostasy, a wicked generation raised at the end of the second world war saw to the death of the body of the mainline churches; the infrastructure for lawful morality was smashed and as of a result we White Christians, a tiny minority on a global scale – live amongst a village of apostates, foreigners and devil-worshippers. The result of this;

You have made us turn back from the foe,
    and those who hate us have gotten spoil.
You have made us like sheep for slaughter
    and have scattered us among the nations.
You have sold your people for a trifle,
    demanding no high price for them.

You have made us the taunt of our neighbors,
    the derision and scorn of those around us.
You have made us a byword among the nations,
    a laughingstock among the peoples.

All day long my disgrace is before me,
    and shame has covered my face
at the sound of the taunter and reviler,
    at the sight of the enemy and the avenger.

How the media, politicians and comedians of today taunt us, laugh at us – God has taken such a sinful nation as us and lead us to the slaughter – we have been scattered amongst foreigners, made minorities in our own towns and cities. If we are to learn anything from the experience of past nations, scripturally or otherwise: We will remain in a perpetual state of hardship at the hands of our enemies until we have fought to push out moral debauchery from our generation; Alcohol, drugs, adultery, jealousy, greed, fornication – the long list of things we are all guilty of – but should not be compromising on, and should at the very least ALWAYS be preaching against.

The Lord God almighty will deliver us from our enemies, he will give us the land; he will destroy the wicked and leave our children an inheritance: But ONLY if we do not compromise on his law and teaching, if ONLY we have God has our sole anchor in life, ONLY IF we live and breath the scripture – The men must meditate on the law night and day as instructed by the psalmist ; The catch-cry to ‘compromise’ on our morals for the sake of ‘saving the race’ or having ‘good optics’ will not result in our ‘race being saved’ it will result in the direct and severe wrath of God, making our situation worse for years and years to come.

Names of previous Nationalist groups and personalities need not be named; but take a look at their track record – look at the long history of broken marriages, adultery, alcoholism, drugs, intemperance and random violence which categorise ‘white movements’ of the past. Did any of them succeed? I don’t think so. So instead of folding to the cry of ‘not being divisive’ over religion, Lets continue the march for Christian nationalism – build bridges with everyone we can, but never compromise on our beliefs, and never be afraid to share those beliefs – This is what God calls us to do.

Many are the afflictions of the righteous,
    but the Lord delivers him out of them all.
He keeps all his bones;
    not one of them is broken.
Affliction will slay the wicked,
    and those who hate the righteous will be condemned.
The Lord redeems the life of his servants;
    none of those who take refuge in him will be condemned.

Psalm 34:19-22


The Second Blast of the Trumpet Against the Monstrous Regiment of Women.

The Second Blast of the Trumpet Against the Monstrous Regiment of Women.

In Modern politics and religion in traditional circles, orthodox circles and conservative circles there is a growing sentiment that women should play a ‘leading role’ in the direction and face of the movement which has commonly been called the neo-reaction, the fourth turning or the rejection of modernity. This sentiment of female leadership should be wholesale rejected by Christians for three primary reasons: Woman are incapable leaders, God will smite and destroy the unfaithful and there are far more important things for women to be engaged in other than politics.

First and foremost is the problem that is fundamental to the nature and character of women; they are awful leaders – not only in modernity, but ever since the dawn of creation – women are not straight thinkers, they fold to corruption more easily; they very much as the scripture calls them “The weaker vessel.” ( 1 Peter 3:7 ) – The book of Timothy reads very clearly: “Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. For Adam was first formed, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.”

Timothy explains why women should not be in leadership in reference to the transgression of the first woman; Eve. This scriptural lesson from Adam and Eve has been proven frequently right to the modern day. Adam, the first man was not deceived by the serpent: Eve, the first woman was quickly lead into transgression by the serpent, which resulted in the fall of Adam. The weak mind of the woman set the whole of humanity to destruction and suffering, it was for this reason that God ordained the rule of man over his wife: “thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.” ( Genesis 3:16 ) – Men must soon realise they will be driven to destruction quickly if they follow the influence of the weaker vessel; God commands men to be in charge; not only for the benefit of men – but to protect our women from the negative results of their own shortsightedness.

The modern example of female leadership is one of consistent tragedy; If it’s not a husband-less make-up whore blogging on YouTube about how she’s finally figured it all out ( whilst being a barren, childless catwoman )  ; It’s a whackjob neo-pagan like Sinead McCarthy who has gone off the deep end and believes in ice-men, full blown veganism and neo-feminism. It’s a woman of this calibre who will argue sincerely that everyone who isn’t a full blown Germanophile neo-nazi is a secret Jew. Contemporary female leaders may have done some good; but that’s likely restricted to drawing in the oceans of beta-male orbiters who froth at the mouth when they see a girl who say’s she is not a feminist, despite being the absolute embodiment of feminist ethics.

The argument of many of these women is that we need “all hands on deck” so to speak, in the kulturekamph – we must destroy the virtues of white Christian society in order to defend white Christian society. They say this without recognising that a society that breaks free from Christian patriarchy will be destroyed directly by the wrath of God. Female leadership in the public sphere on any scale is comparable to having sodomites in the public leadership; they are both fundamentally corrupted by nature: A woman who thinks she can be a leader has abandoned the scriptural nature of her character, she has abandoned the life God has ordained for her – and has chosen vain popularity as her calling. The Sodomite who goes for public leadership suffers from the same fundamental flaws, He rejects the life God has ordained for him.

The law of God says to keep women in subjection, “Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord; For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body.” Timothy says: “[Women] shall be saved in childbearing, if they continue in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety” – surely the Christian must be familiar with the very first Psalm; “Blessed is the man that walketh not in the counsel of the ungodly, nor standeth in the way of sinners, nor sitteth in the seat of the scornful. But his delight is in the law of the Lord; and in his law doth he meditate day and night. And he shall be like a tree planted by the rivers of water, that bringeth forth his fruit in his season; his leaf also shall not wither; and whatsoever he doeth shall prosper. The ungodly are not so: but are like the chaff which the wind driveth away.” 

The scripture teaches the true nature of our God “The eyes of the Lord are upon the righteous, and his ears are open unto their cry. The face of the Lord is against them that do evil, to cut off the remembrance of them from the earth. The righteous cry, and the Lord heareth, and delivereth them out of all their troubles.” Knowing this truth; God will absolutely smite and destroy any group of people who break his law regarding the subjection of women. The group who does not have “all hands on deck” but keeps their women in sobriety, peace and motherhood will be the group who is blessed and protected by God. There is no amount of foreign hordes in this world who can evade the protection of our Lord God.

“Behold, the day of the Lord cometh, cruel both with wrath and fierce anger, to lay the land desolate: and he shall destroy the sinners thereof out of it.”

Should the men and women of our movement keep the law of God; keep his patriarchal law and maintain the subservience of our wives – He shall surely bless us: “Many are the afflictions of the righteous: but the Lord delivereth him out of them all.” The proper duty of our wives is to be a helper for us: “It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him.” to bear our children and give men a reason to fight. The woman occupied in ‘leadership’ abandons her capacity for proper childbearing, and raising a wholesome flock of upright children. She thinks she can do much by being a leader? Think of what 12 children could grow up to be in the right circumstances.  What seven, fully faithful and fully enlightened sons could accomplish.

Not one woman’s “leadership” could be of higher value to our race and religion than her capacity for motherhood – the very thing God ordained for her; and the very thing Timothy said would save her.

Conclusively we must understand that women need to be thrown off the stage, out of the pulpit and placed into the home. They are incapable leaders by their very creation, They in leadership invoke the wrath of God upon our people and finally they could be serving a far better contribution by bearing and raising the next generation of white Christian children.


The law for Aliens and Sojourners

During my investigation into the minds of alienists; I have derived what scriptural support they allegedly have for “multiracialism” – Here is the summary of arguments:

Matthew 25:35 “For I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me drink, I was a stranger and you welcomed me.”

Deuteronomy 27:19 “Cursed be anyone who perverts the justice due to the sojourner, the fatherless, and the widow.’ And all the people shall say, ‘Amen.’”

Hebrews 13:2 “Do not neglect to show hospitality to strangers, for thereby some have entertained angels unawares.”

Zechariah 7:9-10 “Thus says the Lord of hosts, Render true judgments, show kindness and mercy to one another, do not oppress the widow, the fatherless, the sojourner, or the poor, and let none of you devise evil against another in your heart.”

Ezekiel 47:22 “You shall allot it as an inheritance for yourselves and for the sojourners who reside among you and have had children among you. They shall be to you as native-born children of Israel. With you they shall be allotted an inheritance among the tribes of Israel.”

Leviticus 19:34 says, “But let him be among you as one of the same country: and you shall love him as yourselves: for you were strangers in the land of Egypt. I am the Lord your God.”

Jeremiah 7:5-7 ““For if you truly amend your ways and your deeds, if you truly execute justice one with another, if you do not oppress the sojourner, the fatherless, or the widow, or shed innocent blood in this place, and if you do not go after other gods to your own harm, then I will let you dwell in this place, in the land that I gave of old to your fathers forever.”

First of all we must define what ‘multi-racialism’ actually means; for our sake it means the permanent residency of different races mingled together in the same towns and geographical regions.

The scripture is very clear on matters regarding aliens/sojourners – denoted in Hebrew often as ” גָּר ” ; strangers/aliens are temporary inhabitants or foreigners.  Leviticus 19:34 is clear that we should treat them with respect, love them as if they were our own kindred: This is true! as they sojourn ( גּוּר ) amongst us temporarily they should not be mistreated with unprovoked cruelty.  This answers Matthew 25:35, Deuteronomy 27:19, Hebrews 13:2, Zachariah 7:9-10 and Jeremiah 7:5-7  which all command we deal with the sojourner justly and with fairness as we would our own kindred.

The alienist argument rests on the belief that “being kind and just to the alien” implicitly means allowing him to take permanent residence amongst your kindred. This is a false, and heretical argument, made ridiculous in the light of other scripture.

Ezekiel 47:22, which they believe argues for multi-racialism, calls for segregation by tribes/ethnicities. (שֵׁבֶט); We shall treat aliens as natives ( ie: “Be kind and fair with them” ) and then proceed as verse 23 reads to give them their own parcel of land, based on which ethnicity/tribe (שֵׁבֶט) they belong to. “And it shall come to pass, that in what tribe the stranger sojourneth, there shall ye give him his inheritance, saith the Lord God.”

Ezekiel 47:22-23 does not make the argument for multi-racialism as we have defined it; It calls for being just to the sojourners that had been with Israel, and denote to them a parcel of land for them to live in permanancy with their own kindred according to their Tribe. (שֵׁבֶט)  It never has advocated for permanent intermingling of the tribes/ethnicites/races – it has only called for being fair and just with them when they sojourn amongst you; And as soon as you have the ability: Give them their own land to live in, amongst their own kindred, members of their own clan and tribe.


Submission to Governing Authorities

The scripture reads clearly; but it is further clarified by the confessions and creeds of our church fathers. First I will cite the section in question:

Romans 13:1-5

Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God.

Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation.

For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same:

For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil.

Wherefore ye must needs be subject, not only for wrath, but also for conscience sake.

The fact that some people today use this to justify being a passive and subservient fool is so far removed from common sense that it would have been unfathomable for the apostles to perpetuate the view that we should submit to an unholy civil institution. Verse four clearly reads:  “For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil.” 

Given we know good and evil are determined by the eternal law of God; it is clear that the scripture says we should be submissive to civil institutions that execute wrath upon those who break the law of God; ie – the Civil Government implicitly must be an institution of God; fighting for the case of God. The Scots Confession of Faith reads: We further confess and acknowledge, that such persons as are placed in authority are to be loved, honoured, feared, and held in most reverent estimation[ Rom. 13:7; 1 Pet. 2:17.] because they are the lieutenants of God, in whose sessions God himself does sit and judge[ Ps. 82:1.] (yea even the judges and princes themselves), to whom by God is given the sword, to the praise and defense of good men, and to revenge and punish all open malefactors.[ 1 Pet. 2:14] Moreover, to kings, princes, rulers, and magistrates, we affirm that chiefly and most principally the conservation and purgation of the religion appertains; so that not only they are appointed for civil policy, but also for maintenance of the true religion, and for suppressing of idolatry and superstition whatsoever: as in David,[1 Chron. 22-26.] Jehoshaphat,[2 Chron. 17:6, etc.; 19:8, etc.;] Hezekiah,[2 Chron. 29-31.] Josiah,[ 2 Chron. 34-35.] and others, highly commended for their zeal in that case, may be espied.

Conclusively we see again; the reformed position is clear; we are to be subject to the higher powers; as they are the instrument of God’s law in our world. Should the civil magistrate fall into apostasy, ie: cease to follow the law of God – we have no obligation to submit to it.

In defence of God’s law

Christians are not bound today to the law of God as a covenant of works to be justified or condemned. (Ephesians 2:9) It is however of great use to us and others as a rule of life and practice: informing us entirely of the will and character of God – It informs all Christians how to live righteous lives; ( Psalm 1:2-3 ) thereby armed with the law may examine themselves to conduct their lives in obedience to the unchanging ( Isaiah 40:8 ), holy, just and good ( Romans 7:12 ) entire law of God – our foremost understanding of his character.

The Scots confession of Faith reads: “The law of God we confess and acknowledge most just, most equal, most holy, and most perfect; commanding those things, which, being wrought in perfection, were able to give light, and able to bring man to eternal felicity” This is true; as the entire law of God is the mechanism through which we might establish a righteous family, community and commonwealth.

The early apostolic church contested for many years against the members of the Christian church who had proclaimed the grace of God as a license and excuse for lawlessness and sin, Jude 1:4 reads “ungodly men, turning the grace of our God into lasciviousness, and denying the only Lord God, and our Lord Jesus Christ.” St Paul’s writings were enormously clarifying on the question of the role of God’s law in the church writing “What then, shall we sin, because we are not under law, but under grace? God forbid” Romans 6:15 “Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid: yea, we establish the law.” Romans 3:31

Expressing his gratitude to the grace of Christ, St Paul writes in Romans 7:25 “I thank God through Jesus Christ our Lord. So then with the mind I myself serve the law of God; but with the flesh the law of sin.” previous to Christ the law of God had been a curse and a burden, the means through which men were almost always condemned to hell for their fallen, sinful nature – “As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one”

We must understand that Christ never said a negative thing of the law, and in-fact said “Every scribe which is instructed unto the kingdom of heaven is like unto a man that is an householder, which bringeth forth out of his treasure things new and old.” in Matthew 13:52 ; He never proclaimed at any time that his followers should abandon and cease their obedience to the law. Christ infact spoke clearly about his demand to follow the law “Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven. For I say unto you, That except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven.”

The proposition that Christians are not required to follow and respect the law of God is so modern and so far-removed from the history of the Church; Theologians only rarely through history made explicit arguments against it. Reformed Christians must read Chapter XIX ‘Of the law of God’ in the Westminster Confession of Faith; it reads:

VI. Although true believers be not under the law, as a covenant of works, to be thereby justified, or condemned; yet is it of great use to them, as well as to others; in that, as a rule of life informing them of the will of God, and their duty, it directs and binds them to walk accordingly; discovering also the sinful pollutions of their nature, hearts and lives; so as, examining themselves thereby, they may come to further conviction of, humiliation for, and hatred against sin, together with a clearer sight of the need they have of Christ, and the perfection of His obedience.

It is likewise of use to the regenerate, to restrain their corruptions, in that it forbids sin: and the threatenings of it serve to show what even their sins deserve; and what afflictions, in this life, they may expect for them, although freed from the curse thereof threatened in the law. The promises of it, in like manner, show them God’s approbation of obedience,and what blessings they may expect upon the performance thereof: although not as due to them by the law as a covenant of works. So as, a man’s doing good, and refraining from evil, because the law encourages to the one and deters from the other, is no evidence of his being under the law: and not under grace.

VII. Neither are the forementioned uses of the law contrary to the grace of the Gospel, but do sweetly comply with it; the Spirit of Christ subduing and enabling the will of man to do that freely, and cheerfully, which the will of God, revealed in the law, requires to be done.

The moralist case for Christian ethnonationalism

The moralist case for Christian ethnonationalism

Christian ethnonationalism exists as a social, theological movement for the sovereignty and advancement of all the distinct nations under God. Kinism as it is commonly known is not sinful or immoral in any way, it also is not in any way hostile to the tradition teachings of the Reformed faith and finally Kinism has for all time been an implicit theological position of the Christian church.

Christians have for most of our history understood and argued that all the dispensations of God are the ultimate reflection of his character, will and desire. The Reformed Westminster Confession of Faith reads in its 14th Chapter ‘On the law of God’ : “Although true believers be not under the law, as a covenant of works, to be thereby justified, or condemned; yet is it of great use to them, as well as to others; in that, as a rule of life informing them of the will of God, and their duty, it directs and binds them to walk accordingly; discovering also the sinful pollutions of their nature, hearts and lives; so as, examining themselves thereby, they may come to further conviction of, humiliation for, and hatred against sin, together with a clearer sight of the need they have of Christ, and the perfection of His obedience.” Reformers therefore fundamentally have always believed that the entire law and dispensation of God (unless directly revoked by latter prophets, apostles or Christ ) are still the foremost reflection we have of God’s holy character. St Paul writes in Romans 7:12 “Wherefore the law is holy, and the commandment holy, and just, and good.”

Let no mistake be made; we are not only talking about the “moral law” as the ten commandments have been labeled. St Paul is clear: The law AND the commandments are holy, just and good. Christ once said “Every scribe which is instructed unto the kingdom of heaven is like unto a man that is an householder, which bringeth forth out of his treasure things new and old.” It cannot be denied that the usefulness of the law of God both old and new has  NOT been abolished with the physical nation of Israel. St Paul made clear the new covenant of grace simply freed us from the penal demands of the law; but not the demand to follow the law of God. Paul writes: “I thank God through Jesus Christ our Lord. So then with the mind I myself serve the law of God; but with the flesh the law of sin.”

Understanding now that the entire ordinance and laws of God are still profitable for teaching, as confirmed in the Scots Confession of Faith: “The law of God we confess and acknowledge most just, most equal, most holy, and most perfect; commanding those things, which, being wrought in perfection, were able to give light, and able to bring man to eternal felicity”  Christians should then ask themselves, what exactly is the law of God? what is his character and will for us faithful? The questions here to be answered are almost endless in quantity – this essay however is targeting the question of nationhood, race and culture. We know the concept of ethnonationalism is not sinful; as God ordered the exact same practice to be followed by the Israelites.

Regarding inter-racial marriage and by implication: cohabitation – God’s words can be vigorously witnessed throughout the gospel of the nation of Israel; one of the first marriages to be instructed was explicitly demanded to be “unto my country, and to my kindred” when Abraham demanded a wife for his son in Genesis 24:4 – but even earlier than that God instructed a sense of racial kinship with your wife when he created Eve from Adam to which he said “This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh:” Beyond genesis the books and tales of the Judges seem to be a never-ending cycle in which the Israelites rejected the ordinances of God and got involved in inter-racial marriage. We know for certain this is not only regarding inter-religious marriage as the book of Ezra clarifies in Chapter 2:62 “These sought their register among those that were reckoned by genealogy, but they were not found: therefore were they, as polluted, put from the priesthood.” and Chapter 9:2 “For they have taken of their daughters for themselves, and for their sons: so that the holy seed have mingled themselves with the people of those lands: yea, the hand of the princes and rulers hath been chief in this trespass.” 

Modernist, alien-fetishist Christians coincidentally ignore these passages and proclaim that cohabitation and intermarriage is only forbidden with people of different religions! We Kinists say you cannot mix genealogy AND religion. The liberals will also argue that these laws were only designed to keep the nation of Israel pure for the coming of Christ; making it useless for today – Does that too not spill out a very firm message that God may be, perhaps – a tiny bit racist or racially inclined. Understanding Christ and Paul both said these laws were good; just and righteous ‘which bringeth forth out of his treasure things new and old.’ we must understand these laws existed for the fine instruction of the Israelites in how to live righteously and have a successful nation. Christian nations therefore must take up the same understanding and apply the law, including the racial to our own system of law and standards. The racial law therefore; having been made by a perfectly good Lord God could not be sinful or immoral by any measure, to this day using the same principles we are not doing anything outside of the scope of what God has ordained and revealed as his desire for us.

Christian ethnonationalism in no way conflicts with the reformed theology; it in fact clarifies and enhances it. Ethnonationalism is part of a broader spectrum of what is called Theonomy- the understanding that Christian society should be instituted based upon the moral principles of the entire law of God. Reformed churches today struggle with the curse of antinomianism, gracious licentiousness and complacency to societal wickedness. The Kinists however understanding the reasonable implication of the law of God put the Westminster Confessions words at the forefront of their worldview. Continuing from Article 14 of the W.C.F

“[The Law is ] likewise of use to the regenerate, to restrain their corruptions, in that it forbids sin: and the threatenings of it serve to show what even their sins deserve; and what afflictions, in this life, they may expect for them, although freed from the curse thereof threatened in the law. The promises of it, in like manner, show them God’s approbation of obedience,and what blessings they may expect upon the performance thereof: although not as due to them by the law as a covenant of works. So as, a man’s doing good, and refraining from evil, because the law encourages to the one and deters from the other, is no evidence of his being under the law: and not under grace.

Neither are the forementioned uses of the law contrary to the grace of the Gospel, but do sweetly comply with it; the Spirit of Christ subduing and enabling the will of man to do that freely, and cheerfully, which the will of God, revealed in the law, requires to be done.”

Reformed Christianity all through history has not only understood racial/ethnic nationalism to be a Godly principle; but it had gone even further and rightfully so to suggest Slavery is a Christian institution. This essay will not debate the topic of slavery as that will be left for another day, but we must understand in principle that racial intermarriage has only been widely permitted and practiced in Christian nations approximately half a century ago: before this it was taboo, immoral and some times even called adultery. V. S. Herrell writes in his thesis on the sixth commandment ‘In the Latin Vulgate, Exodus 20:13 was translated as non moechaberis. The Latin word moechaberis is an inflected form of moechari, a transliteration of the Greek moicheuo,’ the following definition is given: “of the intermingling of animals and men or of different races. from the Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, edited by Gerhard Kittel and translated into English by Geoffrey W. Bromiley.’ Adultery has been understood historically to mean disloyalty in marriage and fornication with people of different races.

The Reformation in many places had been undertaken on the principle that Rome had no legitimate jurisdiction over other nations, whom it was believed should constitute their own national churches as implied in Chapter 16 of the Scots Confession of Faith, heavily underpinned with the gospel understanding that nations(ἔθνος/ethnos/ethnicities) do exist and have natural borders ( Acts 17:26 ) and that God ordered we make Christians of all nations as units. (Revelation 7:9)

Conclusively we must understand Christian ethnonationalism and kinism are not sinful or immoral as it follows the principles dispensed by God throughout the scripture, knowing that the racial laws of God are “holy, just and good” we understand  that Kinism does not contradict the reformed theology, it in fact ‘sweetly complies with it’ as the Westminster Confession confirms in its articles on the Law of God – summarily we understand also that racial Christian law is not a modern invention, and it has been the standard worldview of Reformed churches for centuries in which it was understood nations had natural borders and intermarriage beyond such borders could be considered adultery.


Kinism does not and never has implied racial superiority; or racial selection for justification; understanding St Paul writes “No confidence in the flesh”

“Let him first cast a stone at her.” – The common misconception

John 8:1-11 is a commonly heard tale for obvious reasons; it appears to the unlearned reader to assert a kind of Christian ethos in which we are to be inactive, passive and unruly over the people of our land and nation. It reads:

But Jesus went to the Mount of Olives. Early in the morning he came again to the temple. All the people came to him, and he sat down and taught them. The scribes and the Pharisees brought a woman who had been caught in adultery, and placing her in the midst they said to him, “Teacher, this woman has been caught in the act of adultery. Now in the Law, Moses commanded us to stone such women. So what do you say?”This they said to test him, that they might have some charge to bring against him. Jesus bent down and wrote with his finger on the ground.And as they continued to ask him, he stood up and said to them, “Let him who is without sin among you be the first to throw a stone at her.”And once more he bent down and wrote on the ground. But when they heard it, they went away one by one, beginning with the older ones, and Jesus was left alone with the woman standing before him. Jesus stood up and said to her, “Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you?” She said, “No one, Lord.” And Jesus said, “Neither do I condemn you; go, and from now on sin no more.”

Firstly we must understand that the law of God demands these matters be settled dilligently by a panel of judges and elders; as written in Deuteronomy 19:15-21

One witness shall not rise up against a man for any iniquity, or for any sin, in any sin that he sinneth: at the mouth of two witnesses, or at the mouth of three witnesses, shall the matter be established.

If a false witness rise up against any man to testify against him that which is wrong;

Then both the men, between whom the controversy is, shall stand before the Lord, before the priests and the judges, which shall be in those days;

And the judges shall make diligent inquisition: and, behold, if the witness be a false witness, and hath testified falsely against his brother;

Then shall ye do unto him, as he had thought to have done unto his brother: so shalt thou put the evil away from among you.

And those which remain shall hear, and fear, and shall henceforth commit no more any such evil among you.

And thine eye shall not pity; but life shall go for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot.

Following such; the law specifies more about the actual punishment in Deuteronomy 13:9  “But thou shalt surely kill him; thine hand shall be first upon him to put him to death, and afterwards the hand of all the people..

The final summary of the law of execution is Deuteronomy 17:6-7 “At the mouth of two witnesses, or three witnesses, shall he that is worthy of death be put to death; but at the mouth of one witness he shall not be put to death. The hands of the witnesses shall be first upon him to put him to death, and afterward the hands of all the people. So thou shalt put the evil away from among you.”

It seems absolutely clear in summary that these pharisees had broken the law for how judgement was to be exacted, they demanded Christ to act as a court of elders and judges: he rejected this notion saying “Ye judge after the flesh; I judge no man.” a very similar position to that of Luke 12:14 “And he said unto him, Man, who made me a judge or a divider over you?” – He then suggests that those men leave as they have no case and says “Let he who is without sin cast the first stone.” – they proceed to leave,  having failed to deceive Christ into professing a sort of antinomian doctrine or doctrine of vigilante justice.

Other commentaries:

John Calvin

They who infer from this that adultery ought not to be punished with death, must, for the same reason, admit that inheritances ought not to be divided, because Christ refused to arbitrate in that matter between two brothers, (Luke 12:13.) Indeed, there will be no crime whatever that shall not be exempted from the penalties of the law, if adultery be not punished; for then the door will be thrown open for any kind of treachery, and for poisoning, and murder, and robbery. Besides, the adulteress, when she bears an unlawful child, not only robs the name of the family, but violently takes away the right of inheritance from the lawful offspring, and conveys it to strangers. But what is worst of all, the wife not only dishonors the husband to whom she had been united, but prostitutes herself to shameful wickedness, and likewise violates the sacred covenant of God, without which no holiness can continue to exist in the world.

Yet the Popish theology is, that in this passage Christ has brought to us the Law of grace, by which adulterers are freed from punishment. And though they endeavor, by every method, to efface from the minds of men the grace of God, such grace as is every where declared to us by the doctrine of the Gospel, yet in this passage alone they preach aloud the Law of grace. Why is this, but that they may pollute, with unbridled lust, almost every marriage-bed, and may escape unpunished? Truly, this is the fine fruit which we have reaped from the diabolical system of celibacy, that they who are not permitted to marry a lawful wife can commit fornication without restraint. But let us remember that, while Christ forgives the sins of men, he does not overturn political order, or reverse the sentences and punishments appointed by the laws.

Go, and sin no more. Hence we infer what is the design of the grace of Christ. It is, that the sinner, being reconciled to God, may honor the Author of his salvation by a good and holy life. In short, by the same word of God, when forgiveness is offered to us, we are likewise called to repentance. Besides, though this exhortation looks forward to the future, still it humbles sinners by recalling to remembrance their past life.

John Trapp

“Neither do I condemn thee” : Hence an Anabaptist will argue that adultery is not to be punished (as they did from that text, “whoremongers and adulterers God will judge,” therefore men ought not to meddle with them). But they may as well say that inheritances are not to be divided between brethren, because our Saviour refused to divide them, Luke 12:14, it being without the lists of his calling, no proper employment of his.


He that is without sin among you.—The word rendered “without sin” is frequent in the classical writers, but is found in this place only in the New Testament. It takes here a special meaning from the context, and is to be understood of the class of sins of which her sin was an instance. (Comp. the word “sinner” as used in Luke 7:37.) Of the immorality among the Jewish rulers, which gives force to these words, evidence is not wanting. Still the wider meaning is probably not excluded. They who ask this question about the Seventh Commandment were themselves breaking the Sixth and the Ninth. It is to be noted, in the application of this answer, that our Lord does not lay down sinlessness as the necessary condition of fitness for taking part in the punishment of guilt. This would be to nullify law, for there could be then no human executive power. He is not speaking in a case brought before the appointed tribunal, but in a case where men assume to themselves the position of judges of another’s guilt. In the judge, while he wears the robe of justice, the individual man ceases to exist, and he becomes the representative of God; but these can now speak only as men, and condemn her only by the contrast of a higher purity. (Comp. Notes on John 10:34 et seq.)

Let him first cast a stone at her.—The Received text and some MSS. (not including the Cambridge MS.) read “the stone,” the stone referred to in John 8:5. “Let him first” means “let him first of you”; not “let him cast the first stone.” This was the duty of the witnesses. ( Deuteronomy 17:7 & Deuteronomy 13:9 ) We must not take the words to express permission only; it is an imperative, expressing command.

Cambridge Greek

The practical maxim involved in Christ’s words is that of Matthew 7:1-5; Romans 14:4. As to its application to them comp. Matthew 12:39; Mark 8:38. He is contending not against punishment being inflicted by human law, but against men taking the law into their own hands.

The Stars and Crosses of Australia

Our flag shows the stars which do sparkle at night, in our Southern Cross so true.
In its corner, are three Christian crosses — the red and the white upon blue.
They’re for England and Ireland and Scotland, who sent to the ends of the earth
the rogues and the schemers and doers and dreamers who gave our Australia her birth
Yet all who detest our three crosses, just don’t want to understand
that they show us our law and our language, and faith in the God of our land.
For people galore will still tell you, when Europe was plunged into night —
those crosses right there in the corner, gave hope of more freedom and light.
So they certainly mean no allegiance, to a bygone imperial scene.
For our stars show us where we are going — and our crosses show where we have been.

Rev. Dr. David Mitchell

Christian Patriarchy

Extracted from the book “The Man for Her” by Fr Leo J. Kinsella

He was a man, take him for all in all, I shall not look upon his like again.” Every girl in dreaming of her future husband, has the right to imagine him measuring up to the appraisal Hamlet made of his father. Whatever else he is envisioned as being, The Man for Her must be a man, not just a sorry excuse for one.

No healthy woman wants a docile lap dog for a husband. True, most every wife, given half a chance, will try her hand at wearing the pants. A weak husband is a constant invitation to her to assume such an ill-becoming role. All of us become confused at times and do not know what we want. Any good wife may be tempted to drop out of character and challenge her spouse as to who is boss; if she wins no one is more disappointed down inside than she herself.

A real woman wants to look up to her husband as her strength and her master.

It is in the nature of a woman to want to submit (for want of a better word); but not to any poltroon. She may rise on occasion to the heights and evidence the valor of a Joan of Arc. Yet, she does not stand well alone against the uncertainties of the dark night. She craves the protection and security of a husband worthy of her trust by reason of his manly virtues and character. To fill the bill the Man For Her must give leadership, firmness during her moments of weakness, and decision in her hour of uncertainty.

A husband must have qualities of leadership because he is the head of the wife and the home. The foot does not lead the head. From the head comes direction to the path the foot may take. Confusion springs from a situation in which the head forfeits its role of leadership.

Once I lived next door to a household in which disorder reigned because the husband made only fitful, if at times violent, attempts to be head of the house. The relationship of this man and wife was summed up one day by a delivery man who found himself between the husband and wife. Apparently the couple were arguing in the presence of the delivery man about the acceptance of some article recently purchased. As the man finally left he muttered aloud; “Too many chiefs in there.”

Obviously one wigwam is large enough for only one Chief.Somebody has to be plain Indian. As soon as you say that a wigwam has two Chiefs you say that the wigwam has no Chief. Ahousewife would be the first to recognize the truth that no home kitchen can survive two cooks. Too many fingers in the pie do the pie no good. How many times has a harassed housewife laid down the ultimatum during the preparation of a holiday dinner, “Now, everybody get out of this kitchen, if you expect anything to eat!” In the kitchen she is boss and rightly so, if she is expected to do the job there. What is true of the kitchen is true in a broader sense of the complete home and family.
If the husband is responsible for the coordinating of all the varied activities of a family, he must be the big Chief. Just as no one in his right mind would deny that a family must have a head, no one would excuse the husband of this responsibility. By nature he has been ordained to be in charge of the family. By Divine Revelation, as expressed by St. Paul, his position is reaffirmed. “Let women be subject to their husbands, as to the Lord; for the husband is the head of the wife, as Christ is the head of the Church…. Therefore, as the Church is subject to Christ, so also let the wives be to their husbands in all things.”
From my own observation I suspect that wives take over only, as a rule, when husbands fail to provide leadership. The husband may be wanting for a number of reasons. He lacks energy and initiative and is lazy. He is short on ability, or he has a debilitating sickness, or his interests are elsewhere than with his family. Because the wife desires the partnership to endure she takes over functions proper to the husband. Suppose that a wife goes to work because the husband is irresponsible in his support of the family. Can anyone be surprised if she begins to call the tunes since she is paying the fiddler? Likewise, ifthe husband provides no companionship and training for the children, especially the boys, is it any wonder that an efficient wife and mother begins to lay down all the rules of discipline? Again, if a husband is generally indecisive and wishy-washy can a wife be blamed for taking the bull by the horns in an attempt to save the marriage?
The conclusion seems to be that if a husband rightly wants to wear the pants, then let him keep them on his own backside. Not many women were made to wear pants becomingly anyway.