Also, very few are going to embrace “kinism” until it drops the incredibly goofy name, and the goofy principle that animates the goofy name. The word was only invented in a lame attempt to try to convince people that the “kinist” isn’t a racist. Also, it makes you sound like you believe in marrying your cousin or sister. “I’m not a racist – those evil people believe you should marry within your race. I’m a kinist – I believe you should marry within your family!”
Webster’s 1828 Dictionary
KIN’DRED, noun [from kin, kind.]
1. Relation by birth; consanguinity.
Like her, of equal kindred to the throne.
2. Relation by marriage; affinity.
3. Relatives by blood or marriage, more properly the former.
Thou shalt go unto my country and to my kindred Genesis 26:1.
4. Relation; suit; connection in kind.
Goofy? On your say so? I think the word “Kinism” works just fine.
Secondly, people needed to be and need to be convinced that Kinists are not racists, because I think it is beyond doubt that racists exist. I mean there really are people who think that non-white people are animals, who believe in dual-seed theory, who believe that non-white people can’t go to heaven, who believe that white people should limit the breeding habits of non-white people. As such there needed to be a demarcation between people who think that way (racists) and people (Kinists) who merely insisted that race exists and that protecting one’s race is a noble thing and who do not agree with the desire to turn the whole world into one giant coffee with cream shade of pigmentation.
But if you don’t like the word “Kinism,” feel free to use your own word. Maybe “Familialism,” or, “Oikophilia-ism,” or “ethno-national,” or “race-realist.” I’m sure there is plenty of room for different words for those who are convinced the word “Kinism” is goofy.
F. H. Glastonbury wrote,
This is complete and utter bullspit. Name just one kinist you know that is a “race-mixer,” or “who believe it’s perfectly OK for a white girl to marry a mulatto, since he’s ‘kin’ to both blacks and Whites.” Kinists have been exhaustively precise on this and for you to now come along to try and muddy up the waters because you think the word is “goofy” is ridiculous.
You’re taking a page out of the Alienist playbook by beating down a strawman. No Kinist ever defined Kinism as you do above. You’re redefining Kinism from how the Kinists have defined Kinism and then you’re bludgeoning your definition of Kinism which no one holds. Well done sport. You have won the day.
Also, your “solution,” doesn’t solve the problem since on your principle if race is what is important than marrying your daughter to someone who is half one race and half another race isn’t a problem because that person also shares her race. If race is what is important than marrying your daughter off to a mixed race person is fine.
F. H. Glastonbury
So embracing “kinism” isn’t going to do much for our people. Liberals are fine with a world where everyone looks like Whoopi Goldberg. Consistent kinists are fine with a world where everyone looks like Hugo Chavez.
More straw men.
After your work there is enough straw laying around to provide fodder for the beasts dwelling in a large farm.
F. H. Glastonbury writes,
Well, I will certainly forget your strawman of Kinism.
No, kinist ever said it is fine to miscegenate between the races.
When people start embracing your definition of “racism,” then we’ll know the world has gone even more to hell in a handbasket.
F. H. Glastonbury writes,
I, for one am thankful for this paragraph above because it gives me the opportunity to distinguish myself from you.
1.) You reveal your pro-abortion for all non-Whites position by referring to the child in-utero as a fetus. This is contrary to the Scripture which views it as a child as seen in the Scripture’s command that the even the accidental killing of such an in-utero child is considered murder.
“When men strive together and hit a pregnant woman, so that her children come out, but there is no harm, the one who hit her shall surely be fined, as the woman’s husband shall impose on him, and he shall pay as the judges determine. But if there is harm, then you shall pay life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, stripe for stripe.” Exodus 21:22-25
But let me guess … you think Black in-utero babies are fetuses and not children and so therefore can be murdered.
2.) Do I worship black in-utero children? Well, I suppose that someone such as yourself who worships White people might well think so. (This in response to your “idolater” quip.)
3.) I find irony in the idea that by not supporting the killing of in-utero babies we are hence supporting the killing of families, cities, and nations. Are we God that we should determine who lives and dies without warrant from Scripture in making that determination? You may think yourself capable. I trust myself less than that.
Yes, yes … I understand that your steroid pragmatism insists that I am a fool for not supporting abortion for only minorities since minorities, generally speaking, are seeking to destroy White Christian civilization. But it is a foolishness I am willing to live with for I am not ashamed of the power of the Gospel knowing that it can change hearts and minds of all men everywhere.
4.) There is zero traditional understanding of scripture and the faith which has affirmed the butchery of babies of rape and/or incest.
By contrast, in colonial/Reformation era America even mulatto babies were carried to term, and either held as slaves by the family which birthed them, or donated to churches to be used as slaves of Parsonages. In either case, their raising was entrusted to Slave mammies who viewed the lighter-complexion of mulattoes as a status symbol.
5.) The only godly men I know anymore who are of good character and sense are Kinists — white or non-white. I could name of a dozen or more of them with whom I would entrust my life. More than that, most of them I would even entrust my pulpit to on a Sunday Morning. I shutter to think of the men you know who share your opinions who you count as “godly men who have good character and sense.” If they share your convictions please keep them away from me and mine.
6.) You’re right … it’s not a winning message. Good thing no Kinist is thumping for that message.
7.) The idea that Numbers 11 can be used to support the Abortion industry is mind numbing. When we once again have a temple, priests, and grain offerings I will be all for reinstating this means of abortion. Until then I am not making any exegetical flights of fancy that allow me to say that Numbers 11 supports the abortion industry.
You must have your bedroom decked out with Kermit Gosnell posters.
I’ve learned from you in the past F. H. Glastonbury and so I thank you for that but this is approximately 10 bridges to far.