McAtee contra F. H. Glastonbury on Abortion & Kinism

F. H. Glastonbury writes

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!”

BLMc responds,

Webster’s 1828 Dictionary

KIN’DREDnoun [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,

Also, consistent kinists are racemixers who believe it’s perfectly OK for a white girl to marry a mulatto, since he’s “kin” to both blacks and Whites. Some “kinists” disagree with that, so they should stop saying the principle is kinship, when it’s race. If kinship is what’s important, than marrying your daughter off to a mulatto is fine. If kinship isn’t the main principle, then stop calling yourself a kinist.
BLMc responds.

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.

BLMc responds,

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,

Forget kinism. It’s a dead end, and not close to being the answer. Millions of White people want their kids and grandkids to remain White; they don’t want their daughters marrying mulattos, even if kinists say it’s fine because mulattos are kin to White people. When people start embracing racism, then we’ll know we’re getting somewhere.

BLMc responds,

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,

Also, nearly all kinists are idolaters of black fetuses. Like most popular things these days, the “pro-life” movement means the exact opposite of its name. Pro-lifers are pro-death. Abortionists destroy fetuses; pro-lifers destroy families, communities, cities, and nations. Many kinists won’t even allow abortion for rape or incest. Which means that , on top of the goofy name, kinism will thankfully never attract very many White men of godly character and good sense. “Jesus came to give us bastards born to ugly, ignorant unmarried sluts who grow up to become violent, ugly felons who rape our wives and daughter and fill our prisons, and that more abundantly!” is not a winning message, no matter how many Francis Schaeffer books you own. Pro-lifers may hate their own grandchildren and want to create a monstrous world for them to try to raise a family in, but most normal White people do not yet hate their grandchildren. And in the Bible, God even provides a potion to cause an abortion in wife who’s been a whore, so He’s hardly a “pro-lifer.” But we’d rather boo-hoo about black fetuses than be Christians.

BLMc Responds,

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.

Author: jetbrane

I am a Pastor of a small Church in Mid-Michigan who delights in my family, my congregation and my calling. I am postmillennial in my eschatology. Paedo-Calvinist Covenantal in my Christianity Reformed in my Soteriology Presuppositional in my apologetics Familialist in my family theology Agrarian in my regional community social order belief Christianity creates culture and so Christendom in my national social order belief Mythic-Poetic / Grammatical Historical in my Hermeneutic Pre-modern, Medieval, & Feudal before Enlightenment, modernity, & postmodern Reconstructionist / Theonomic in my Worldview One part paleo-conservative / one part micro Libertarian in my politics Systematic and Biblical theology need one another but Systematics has pride of place Some of my favorite authors, Augustine, Turretin, Calvin, Tolkien, Chesterton, Nock, Tozer, Dabney, Bavinck, Wodehouse, Rushdoony, Bahnsen, Schaeffer, C. Van Til, H. Van Til, G. H. Clark, C. Dawson, H. Berman, R. Nash, C. G. Singer, R. Kipling, G. North, J. Edwards, S. Foote, F. Hayek, O. Guiness, J. Witte, M. Rothbard, Clyde Wilson, Mencken, Lasch, Postman, Gatto, T. Boston, Thomas Brooks, Terry Brooks, C. Hodge, J. Calhoun, Llyod-Jones, T. Sowell, A. McClaren, M. Muggeridge, C. F. H. Henry, F. Swarz, M. Henry, G. Marten, P. Schaff, T. S. Elliott, K. Van Hoozer, K. Gentry, etc. My passion is to write in such a way that the Lord Christ might be pleased. It is my hope that people will be challenged to reconsider what are considered the givens of the current culture. Your biggest help to me dear reader will be to often remind me that God is Sovereign and that all that is, is because it pleases him.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *