Point 2: Kinism preaches an anti-Biblical, anti-Christ gospel.
Anything that even hints of an acceptance, association, or accommodation of racist "Christianity" should be avoided by the concerned Christian minister. That would include avoiding any possible association with groups that maybe don't like the overt racism of some, but who hail the antebellum South as a model of racial harmony, progress, and blessedness. It would mean running as fast as your penny loafers can take you from people who exalt Southern white heroes, history, and purported ethnicity WHEN that exaltation is bolstered by "Anglo-Celtic" pride and "Southron" rights and culture that are, by definition, exclusion of ethnic minorities. And it certainly would include preaching, writing, and teaching that black people were better off under slavery than they are now.
So here's a sample of Kinist belief. Tell me if it looks like neo-Confederate and Rushdoony-ish propaganda gone even more haywire. Better yet, tell me if it looks like Jesus.
From Spirit/Water/Blood, a "Christian" Kinist group, posted yesterday:
"Amen! Our enemies have raised the Black Flag, shouting No Quarter! White people will receive no quarter.
Right Now, in the Forced Union (note: a name that those who lament the South's loss in the Civil War use for the United States - kem), children under the age of @ 8-9 years of age are non-White, do the progression. Next year 10, then 11, 12, 13, etc. This does not take into account, 30 - 50 million more non-White Invaders (in a very short time) with Obama's Shamnesty. We can survive 400 years of slavery, but we can not survive Genocide. We face the end, unless the Living God intercedes for us.
Solo Christus,
Sic Semper Tyrannis" (end)
How in the name of all that's holy does someone sign such a racist screed with "Solo Christus"?
By the way, Kinists believe that slavery was horrible . . . because it brought blacks ("jigaboos" is often substituted) into what was formerly an all-white nation (except for those pesky Native peoples). Now, believing that slavery wasn't so bad (not as bad as liberal, sodomite-loving, pro-abortionist pagans have taught), isn't Kinism. But a defense of the evil of slavery and the disregard of the particular horrors of America's peculiar institution, as well as assertions that White rule over Blacks was better for them than the offense of forced integration has proved to be, isn't going to convince too many people on the outside of the difference.
More important, it doesn't look like Jesus, either.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
I see. So Doug Wilson stands condemned under the principle of "guilt by six degrees of separation."
A wise Pope once said, "All looks yellow to a jaundiced eye." Maybe you should change your blog's color scheme to a yellow theme to reflect the reality.
One of the things I admire about Doug Wilson is that he is more concerned about pleasing God than he is about pleasing people who are obsessed with appearing to be politically correct. His primary offense is the offense of the gospel and the things that necessarily follow from believing what's written in the Bible.
Now if you can't tell the difference between Doug Wilson and someone who preaches hate, or someone who is a racist, that's indicative of a problem in you, not a problem in Doug Wilson.
I dare say, if anything, you could qualify as more of a racist than Doug Wilson, because you're the one obsessing with racism, not him.
Many a nutty statement is posted online under the rubric of Kinism. But shutting such sites shut down under "anti hate speech" legislation would be a mistake. Places where controversial topics like government racial policies can be discussed freely are few and far between. There is so much hypocrisy, and B.S. proclaimed in the name of "social justice" that Kinists perform a valuable service by airing contrarian views that force people to think. People who call for such websites to be shut down are people who do not want to have to think.
The truth should have nothing to fear from open discussion of opposing viewpoints. In principle, people should have the right to express any opinion as long as they can argue rationally for it. And if they can't argue rationally for it, then let them be torn to shreds by their opponents. People in America today can no longer argue with one another. They try to shout each other down, resort to name-calling, demonizing, running away with their fingers in their ears, and then send in a SWAT team to haul their opponents off to jail. How I wish that last sentence was hyperbole.
The view that, as a group, whites in America are worse off for the presence of blacks, as a group, is definitely a position that can be argued for cogently. It depends on what one cares to focus on. I can think of many black people -- such as Thomas Sowell, Walter Williams, and Voddie Baucham, to name a few -- who have enriched me greatly. How does one quantify the value of such men's contributions to society? There is a certain sense in which it is correct to say that they are priceless.
On the other hand, it is definitely possible to calculate at least a ballpark figure of what black people, as a group, have cost white people, as a group, in America, and there can be no doubt about that fact that whites, as a group, would be far better off financially, and would have to deal with far less violent crime, if we had been spared the net contribution of blacks to American society over the years. Even Obama is testifying to this: http://tinyurl.com/mpltpo
Without intending to approve of all the content of the following website, you really need to check out: http://www.white-history.com/hwrdet.htm
Don't tell me urban decay is not a black problem. "There goes the neighborhood" is not an aphorism for nothing. Baltimore is now the murder capital of the USA. It too is a black problem. When asked what she planned to do about Baltimore's crime problem, the mayor replied that she would ask the federal government for more money for additional Head Start programs. http://www.colorofcrime.com/
Sotomayor is just one more in a long line of people who frankly admit that whites are, as a group, intellectually superior to blacks and Hispanics. When speaking of large numbers, this is undeniable. And in the modern economy, intellectual prowess translates into economic advantage. Whites and especially East Asians and Ashkenazi Jews have significantly higher IQs. Working one's butt off in school and a healthy family environment can go a long way toward bridging the gap, but as a group, blacks lack exactly the things that would help ameliorate the effects of lower IQ. If anything, the way blacks live exacerbates their innate disadvantages. All of this translates into a serious drain on the white sector of society. Things are no better in Africa. Don't ask me for examples. They are too easy to find and too depressing to have to face.
In the recent Black Panther voter intimidation case that was dismissed, one thug could be heard saying, "You are about to be ruled by the black man, cracker." That sums up the mentality of a lot of minorities who see Obama's presidency as "payback time."
So . . . does that mean that Kinism is correct? Not necessarily. But a lot of what they have to say cannot be simply dismissed as the ravings of hate-filled lunatics.
Post a Comment