Van Prinsterer on National Life
Kinists are often taken to task on the basis of our claim that there is a national life (and by extension a racial life), and not merely a tribal life. While it is true that the tribal social organization, being built immediately and directly out of near and intermediate relations is the primary component, commerce and interchange between tribes, based on shared characteristics, commonalities of law, unities of custom, among other traits, aggregate to bring into being a larger, more expansive existence. In the passage below from Gillaume Groen van Prinsterer, taken from his important treatise Lectures on Unbelief and Revolution, we find an eloquent expression of this conception:
Where several states form a close union as a result of origin,location and intercourse, unity of development cannot be absent. e.g. in Greece. What differences between cities and tribes, what antagonism between Dorians and Ionians! What contrast between Athens and Sparta! Yet there was a Greek nationality; and it would be possible to show that those diverse tribes, landscapes and localities all contributed — not just by imitating each other but also through their own proper development — to the progress, stagnation and decline of the national life.
And would there not likewise, after the fall of the Roman Empire, have been unity and coherence among the European states, a European nationality? There was unity of origin (through the melting or dwelling together of the barbarians with the inhabitants of the Roman domains); unity of development and vicissitudes (resistance to the continual migrations of nomadic peoples; feudalism; crusades; rise of the towns; recovery of royal power); unity of learning and culture (chivalry; the influence of Antiquity; the universal use of Latin); unity of religion (with respect to it, common participation in every change).
Especially the last three centuries. Thus Heeren is right in calling his work a History of Europe’s Political System and Political Association (preface, v; p. 18). (general criterion) Visible everywhere is the intermeshing or crossing of interests; shared turbulance and strife; the parallel development of learning, of culture; the diffusion of the same principles and ideas; even the blurring of the separate nationalities, so that Sterne compares them to worn-off coins. On what, then, would the hypothesis rest that the revolutionary current was proper well-nigh exclusively to France?
History confirms this reasoning.
Kinism is not an ideology, it is a life force arising out of the memory and investigation of the neglected traditions of our fathers, those pre-modern traditions that more closely resembled the mutual understandings of the ancient Western church. As such, there is a diversity of views on what degree of consanguinity and cultural resemblance constitutes an equal yoking of partners, and the conditions for stable, peaceable national existence. What is clear is that there has occurred in the geopolitical entity referred to as the United States a specifically national disintegration that violates any reasonable understanding of these conditions, and the result has not been the development of a post-national life, but strife, enmity, and mutual suspicion arising out of the violation of natural barriers, accumulated over ages. While it is also clear that national life is something that is in the eye of the beholder, that is precisely the point, and why Kinism insists on the principles of self-determination and voluntary association, incorporated into the U.S. Constitution, dedicated to the posterity of the people, and not the involuntary social engineering of governments and economic elites.