Pardon me for responding to your post until now.

I am glad that you agree with my comments in the main. I was not jesting when I stated that I would prefer a first or second cousin as my wife. I disagree with your statement that first or second cousin marriage is forbidden from a “Biblical standpoint”. The Law of God clearly does not prohibit it. Chapters 18 and 20 in the book of Leviticus and chapter 27 in Deuteronomy for example, does not outlaw the practice. God is not displeased with first or second cousins joining themselves in the covenant of marriage. The following examples are faithful to God’s Law: the Patriarch Isaac married his first cousins Rachel and Leah, the daughters of Eleazar married their first cousins (1 Chronicles 23:21-22), and the five daughters of Zelophedad married “the sons of their father’s brothers” (Numbers 36:11).

I do not accept as authoritative the Book of Common Prayer and genetic studies. The Word of God is my sole authority in life, faith, and practice.

Oscar, I hope you are jesting. The tables of affinity (say, in the old BCP) forbade marriage of first and even second cousins- both from a genetic standpoint (which we now know) as well as from the Biblical standpoint.

However, your comment in the main, is apt. Just as Gehazi was sent back to find a bride for Isaac from among Abraham’s ‘own people’ it is not so surprising that, in earlier days, you would often marry ‘one of your own’- whether that was via extended family, or in the town in which the ‘founding families’ are/were all more or less inter-related by marriage. In my case, I found after the fact that, while I was of Scots extraction, and sought assiduously to marry a good Scandinavian girl from my home town,(share religious, cultural, ethnic, and racial particulars) it turns out that our family’s part of Scotland was ruled by Norway for 500 years- so, I actually DID marry ‘in-tribe’ as it were! I only learned this some ten years after the fact, so clearly, God’s providence, and not mine, brought that about, because in the 1980′s, I sought to be faithful to the example of Isaac as I read it in Scripture, when I made up my mind to search for a ‘helpmeet’….

But to wholly return to the pre-Christian slop? Inconceivable. Hebrews 6:

“For it is impossible for those who were once enlightened, and have tasted the heavenly gift, and have become partakers of the Holy Spirit, and have tasted the good word of God and the powers of the age to come, if they fall away, to renew them again to repentance, since they crucify again for themselves the Son of God, and put Him to an open shame. For the earth which drinks in the rain that often comes upon it, and bears herbs useful for those by whom it is cultivated, receives blessing from God; but if it bears thorns and briers, it is rejected and near to being cursed, whose end is to be burned.”

If you really care about the white race, you’ll help them to live by heeding these words. Otherwise, stop boring us with your gene-thumping. By your own admission, your genes will not save you from certain death. So what kind of snake oil are you selling?

By the way, it fascinates me when those who have no standard for law other than their own navel get huffy about violence. What they really mean is that they don’t want any laws enforced except for the ones they personally care about. This is libertarianism, and no society has ever been ordered by it. But that’s just the tip of it. If they can’t explain the basis of law, they also can’t explain, objectively, why violence against anyone is bad. All they really know is that they hate Jesus Christ. And this is why they love death, despite their gesticulations about the glories of the white race. Racialism is just a cover for their own megalomania.

Unless those ancestors are pre-Christian pagans. I guess walking in the ways of their ancestors just “wasn’t possible” for the first Europeans who converted to Christianity and then forced it on everyone else by violence. Interesting.

Of course, the Fifth Commandment applies to racial intermarriage as well, because there has never, in the history of the world, been a father who really wanted his child to cross a racial boundary. Not ever. There are some who agree to force a smile, and some of these are zealots who consider it a cross to carry because their pastors have lied to them. But no one has ever considered it to be better than homogeneity. Even the race-mixers themselves admit that it’s fraught with problems.

I believe that a faithful and consistent Kinism seeks to preserve the tribal identity of a people. The uniqueness and integrity of the various European Tribes should be defended (and of all the other non-European tribes of the earth by their respective peoples, incidentally). When I read the Scriptures, I see that our Great God loves the diversity that he has created. As you know, God even established boundaries and separated the sons of Jacob into twelve different tribes who were commanded not to intermix. The Spanish, French, German, Irish, English, Italian, Russian, and other European nations should embrace and conserve their ethnic characteristics for the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ. This means that, if someone is of German ancestry he should marry someone of German ancestry. The higher goal then, is to maintain and keep the singularity of one’s tribe/ethnicity/nation. God willing, one day I will marry a Christian woman of my kin who is, preferably, a first or second cousin of mine.

But I’ve hobnobbed with preachers enough to know that many of them are well aware of what their forefathers believed, what the Bible actually says about these things, and what has actually worked in history, and they willfully choose to lie about it, because they have everything to gain by doing so. I wish I weren’t so cynical, but experience has jaded me.

Still, your advice is good. We do need to pray for them.

Dr. Morecraft reminds me of me, 5 years ago. I too was a mindless champion of ‘diversity’ AND racial integration at the same time; and I just did not see the inherent contradiction of my position. It is amazing to me, the inroads marxism has made in the church. It should be obvious to everyone that diversity will only flourish with less integration. And, racial integration, if actively encouraged, will only kill and stifle diversity. There is no way to have both at the same time, and in the same way, without violating the iron-clad laws of logic.

And yet God is engaged in producing an over-arching spiritual unity through the gospel, that will eventually produce peace and goodwill among all the many tribes of the earth. Spiritual unity, AND ALSO physical diversity. And all to the glory of God!Pray for our preachers.. they may be the last ones to see this, simply because they all went to seminaries infected with the radical equality dogma of marxism. Poor souls.

As liberals have progressed beyond “consensual marriage” (no parents involved in the decision) they have made allowances under the penalty of law for “consensual sex.” But in both the Bible and in history, there is no concept of “consensual sex.” Even if you tried to marry someone who your father forbade you to marry, and saved sex for the wedding night, you were still the perpetrator and/or the victim of rape. As Martin Bucer said, “The laws of the early church and of pious emperors define it as rape if anyone joins a woman to himself in matrimony without the knowledge and consent of parents, even if the woman consents.”

But as you said, in our time we need to return to first principles, because there are many parents who would gladly consent to such outrages, having been indoctrinated all their lives by Jews, and by Christians who have lost all sense of propriety. It’s hard to know where to turn when even pastors are preaching lies, but this is why Kinists devote so much time to returning the hearts of the sons to their fathers, so to speak.