Here I am trying to mind my own business while I enjoy my dogmatic slumbers and my name gets sullied and besmirched by a kid whose probably young enough to be my grandson. So much for an Elder being worthy of double honor. It is a tad frustrating that, in the words of Michael Corleone, just when I think I’m getting out they pull me back in. Ah well, I’m always up for another round of whack-an-Alienist.
Tait Zimmerman wrote, ( A shame he was too young to vote for Sarah Palin last time she ran for office),
They (the Kinists) start their argument with the claim that they only want to “love their kin.”
Bret responds,
Imagine the hutzpah in starting an argument with wanting to love our kin? What’s next? Kinists starting arguments that they love their place of birth? The cheek of it all.
Taiter continues,
When developed, though, the argument is they can only love their kin if separated from all other “kins,” which means that the final objective is racial separation and segregation, and declaring a “racially-mixed society” to be an evil society.
Bret responds,
1.) Kinists don’t have to have racial separation and segregation as an objective because it always naturally occurs when Government isn’t legislating that people do not have freedom to assemble, thus unnaturally forcing people together who otherwise wouldn’t gather. If Taiter had eyes wide open he’d notice, for example the self-segregating that happens as the Universities increasingly having graduation ceremonies for their Black students or for their Hispanic students. Maybe Taiter would notice organizations like the Black Congressional Caucus or, I don’t know … something like Black Lives Matter. Kinists don’t have to have as an objective racial separation or segregation because it happens naturally when both,
a.) Government quits legislating against freedom of assembly and
b.) When the Lugenpresse and Hollywood doesn’t jam integration down everyone’s throats.
2.) I don’t know that I would say that a “racially-mixed society is an evil society,” though I certainly would say that a racially-mixed society is a unstable and unhealthy society. But then if I said that I wouldn’t be alone. I would just be parroting the conclusions found in sociologist Robert P. Putnam’s book “Bowling Alone.” But as Taiter probably doesn’t read much past his multi-volume graphic novel set he probably has never heard of this book or author. Putnam is hardly a friend of Kinism but his conclusions are that a racially/culturally mixed society is one where trust denigrates and people disengage.
Taiter writes,
Needless to say, (kinists think) “inter-racial” marriages between Christians are sin, or, to put it more mildly, “not according to the original marriage,” where Adam and Eve had the same genetic composition.
Bret repsonds,
Not all Kinists say inter-racial marriage is always sin all the time. Many, like me, say, that inter-racial marriage is on the whole unwise and should not be entered into for the sake of both parties and for the sake of any future children. We look at the statistics for divorce for inter-racial marriages and see that it is even higher than for intra-racial marriages and seeing that we conclude that it is not wise and counsel against it. Kinists believe that two people entering into marriage ought to have us much common ground between the two people as is possible. This includes race/ethnicity, culture, faith, class, lifestyles, worldviews, etc.
However, like me, many kinists also say that once such a marriage is contracted that the Church should support such a marriage as much as possible.
Taiter opines,
(Kinists think that) Culture is defined not by faith (Henry Van Til, “Culture is religion externalized”) but by the genetic composition of a nation.
Bret responds,
1.) I do believe that culture is religion externalized. However, the religion that is externalized is the religion of a particular people. Taiter is dealing in abstractions while I am saying that, “yes, culture is religion externalized but you can’t have religion externalized apart from a set people who are externalizing that religion.” Even the Scripture agrees with me when we see St. Paul talk about the Cretans. Just imagine the culture the Cretans created because of their religion. Paul said the Cretans were always liar. People who are always liars are liars because of their religion and as part of their religion externalize all that to create a culture of lies.
2.) Taiter is being all Gnostic here to suggest that cultures are made by faith and religion apart from the people — with all their genetic traits — who make up the cultures, faith, and religions in question. Culture isn’t created without people and people, I’m sorry to report to the Taiter, are who they are in their physical reality in harmony with their genes. One simply can’t peel what a person believes apart from the person who is doing the believing. Culture is religion externalized as that religion is poured over the people God has ordained a people to be in their genetic reality. So, culture, like humans, has both a spiritual component (what we believe) and a physical component (the person who is doing the believing). If Alienists, like our Taiter, here cut off the genetic reality what else can that be but Gnosticism?
Here I pause to go all C. S. Lewis and ask, “What do they teach these children in Sunday School these days?”
3.) Yes, Taiter I think a culture should be defined in part by the genetic composition of the nation since one can’t peel a culture away from the nation that in which it exists.
Look, as an example in micro, when we consider the family culture of the McAtee’s we have to consider how what they believe interacts with who God has predisposed them to be by way of who God has made them to be per nature (genes). McAtees historically have been stubborn. Now that can be bent to God’s purposes by channeling it into determination or it can be bent to opposition to God by being pigheaded. Being regenerated doesn’t take away that disposition. However, grace can restore nature so that stubborness becomes a tool in God’s hand for God’s glory. Taiter, on the contrary is suggesting that grace destroys nature which is, as we have said, a Gnostic move.
Taiter writes,
Mixture of genes, then (or, as they call it, “miscegenation”), creates a “multicultural society,” which is anti-Biblical, they claim. They all teach segregation of society, and they all believe a “multi-racial” society is by default a “multi-cultural” society and therefore evil, even if everyone in that society is a Christian.
Bret responds,
I’m completely open to learning about all these multi-racial societies that are not multi-cultural. Let the Taiter march them before our eyes by giving us examples. At the same time let the Taiter give us examples of multi-cultural societies where everyone has been a Christian.
Taiter, in my favorite part, writes,
Their main guru, McAtee (who, ironically, looks nothing like a Celt but rather like a Calabrian butcher) believes in the forming of segregated “Christian cultures”: Mongolian, Celtic, etc. Segregated by genetic composition, of course.
The Calabrian Butcher responds,
1.) I weep for the lack of originality in American utes. It’s been probably around a decade since a small alienist Bulgarian first dubbed me a “Calabrian Butcher.” Can’t Taiter come up with anything original? I mean I can come up with all kinds of metaphors of what he looks like. “Effeminate soy boy?” “Nightgown boy?” “Honey, how does this dress look on me boy?” Still, I’m good with the Calabrian butcher title. Have you ever seen those Calabrian butchers handle a cleaver Taiter? Better not get to close Effeminate soy boy.
2.) McAtee believes that Christian cultures will self-segregate so that there will be no need to employ a plan to form these different Christian cultures. When people are left to themselves like will seek out like. But even if McAtee did think exactly what Effeminate soy boy says he would stand in good company with Abraham Kuyper;
“The Javanese are a different race than us; they live in a different region; they stand on a wholly different level of development; they are created differently in their inner life; they have a wholly different past behind them; and they have grown up in wholly different ideas. To expect of them that they should find the fitting expression of their faith in our Confession and in our Catechism is therefore absurd.
Now this is not something special for the Javanese, but stems from a general rule. The men are not all alike among whom the Church occurs. They differ according to origin, race, country, region, history, construction, mood and soul, and they do not always remain the same, but undergo various stages of development. Now the Gospel will not objectively remain outside their reach, but subjectively be appropriated by them, and the fruit thereof will come to confession and expression, the result may not be the same for all nations and times. The objective truth remains the same, but the matter in appropriation, application and confession must be different, as the color of the light varies according to the glass in which it is collected. He who has traveled and came into contact with Christians in different parts of the world of distinct races, countries and traditions cannot be blind for the sober fact of this reality. It is evident to him. He observes it everywhere.”……
Abraham Kuyper:
Common Grace (1902–1905)
3.) Although I would love to think it is true, it is manifestly not the truth that “McAtee is the main guru of the Kinists.” You could lop my head off tomorrow and the strength of Kinism would not diminish one iota. Kinism is a decentralized movement with more gurus then you can shake a stick at. In point of fact, anybody who is epistemologically self-conscious as a Kinist is a Kinist guru. They have to be since they are under such withering idiotic attacks. If a man is a kinist you can be sure he has thought it through to the point that he himself is a guru. I suppose I’d like to be “King of the Kinists,” but that is just nonsense. Every Kinist I know is as much as a guru as I am. Thanks to people like the Taiter that will continue to be true.
Taiter writes,
And no, most of them do not keep it generally to races and skin color, they do go deeper to genetic differences between ethnic groups, for they all use as their support verse in the Bible where the Jews were advised to divorce their non-Jewish wives. That passage, of course, is not about different skin colors but about different ethnicities within the same skin color, and many of the wives were of Semitic nations kin to the Hebrews. So, no, it’s not just general about skin color, it is much more specific about different ethnicities.
Bret responds,
First, race is more than skin color. Only a public school educated person thinks otherwise. Second, naturally kinist would advise that a second generation Italian growing up in New York city’s “Little Italy” would be wise to marry another second generation Italian growing up in similar circumstances. Remember, we kinists advocate that two people entering into marriage have as much common ground as possible. Just shoot us for thinking that way.
Second, in terms of the Ezra passage let us just note that not only the foreign wives were sent away but also the children of these unions. Obviously, as such, there was more than just different religions going on in the dismissal in the Ezra passage.
Now, Taiter, please allow me to return to my dogmatic slumbers.
