Out of the heart the mouth speaks...

Earlier today, I noticed a rather obscure post that I wrote and posted six months ago was getting a ton of hits. So I checked it out and here's what I found.

The racist site run by men who claim to be reformed Christians has posted this text under the headline, "I Saw Gooley Fly," the title of my Dad's collection of short stories:

I Saw Gooley Fly

If you're wondering why Tim Bayly is so filled with hatred for normal White people, wonder no more. The wicked always lash
out at the righteous to justify their perversion.

And under this short post, the racist site has had only one comment posted by a woman named "Joy":

I just get sick, everytime I see White folks with black kids. WTF????? And the stoopid idiots who are so blind. They earnestly believe that it is Christian to have mulatto children, and to adopt every child of every other race except a White child.They really do hate their kind.*&%%$##!!!I do not even wish God's mercy on them.
I've warned against these men on this blog, and now I do so again. If you've ever been inclined to read them, don't! Don't search for their site; don't read their vile bile; and don't be fooled by the kindler and gentler face they put on when they come on over and try to engage us in argument. Their pollution can (and will) harm you.

If there's anyone reading who's wondering whether this attack has caused me to have second thoughts about my son-in-law, Doug, and his wife, Heather's, adoption of Josiah, the answer is no--not in a million years. Rather, it's strengthened my resolve to call pastors and elders in the PCA to discipline these men.



My great-grandfather rode with the Ku Klux Klan in the 20s. I take a lot of amusement from the fact that his male-line heir is a Papist, married to an American Indian, and raising three Hispanic kids. He must be spinning in his grave fast enough to create his own magnetic field.

That's the way to handle dirty-eared inbreds like these "kinists" that won't leave you be. The more we "miscegenate," the more we can laugh at them.

"I've warned against these men on this blog, and now I do so again. If you've ever been inclined to read them, don't! Don't search for their site; don't read their vile bile; and don't be fooled by the kindler and gentler face they put on when they come on over and try to engage us in argument. Their pollution can (and will) harm you."

One response to this might be:

"Can we talk? Uh, no."

Your kindler and gentler mask is slipping with each ad hominem and every unsupported attack.

Weisbrot, you are a coward. Quit shooting from the shadows and give us your real name. If you are going to attack my son (and yes, he is my son) or cast your lot with them, come out and do it like a man.

Can we change the subject now please? Isn't it obvious by now that this qualifies as casting pearls before swine?

Weisbrot, here's some support that I dug around and found. It was an undeleted and unargued with post from the website:

"I just get sick, everytime I see White folks with black kids. WTF????? And the stoopid idiots who are so blind. They earnestly believe that it is Christian to have mulatto children, and to adopt every child of every other race except a White child.They really do hate their kind.*&%%$##!!!I do not even wish God's mercy on them."

Interesting, eh?

Oh, wait . . .

It's like talking to Scientologists, isn't it?

I had the misfortune of being seated amidst a crowd of wild-eyed, disheveled Jim Bakkerites during the height of the PTL scandals back in the late 1980's -- it was a local PBS talk show. Those people were insane, too, but they were different -- but the Bakkerites were honest people, even though the couple they lionized were both scoundrels.

I wouldn't hesitate to just delete certain posts, if I were you. If you can tell over time that someone's intention is merely to throw any rational conversation about race into a storm of turmoil, or to spike criticism of kinism, then they're nothing more than Lokis, sowing mischief (though I guess being a "Loki" would be sufficiently Aryan, wouldn't it? They thertainly are thorheads).

Weisbrot, Archie is raising his son in the knowledge and admonition of the Lord. Every single day Archie prays that his son will grow up to love and serve Jesus Christ, and work for the furthering of His Kingdom. I'm baffled as to why you have a problem with that. Forget race, Archie is raising his son TO LOVE JESUS CHRIST!! That is the bottom line, I cannot fathom why you have a problem with someone doing that.

Archie, God bless you as you and Heather raise your children. Perhaps I'll get to see you and your family if we cross paths in Bloomington, as I know we have on a few occasions. Take care!

Please explain this to me:

How it can be right to take the actions of a few of a group and apply it to the whole group with the kinists with impunity, but sin worthy of excommunication to apply attributes of the others (crime in Blacks for instance) to the greater group?

How is it right to allow to once again apply the "dirty-eared inbred" label to kinists without censure and yet call for charges and eventual excommunication for the sin of calling someone a monkey?

In your view how exactly does "dirty-eared inbred" fail to deny the image of God in man any less than "nigger" or "wetback"?

Granted, I found the post in poor taste, and in complaining about the actions of adults I consider it important to leave the children out of it. Still, how is the tone of it any least tasteful or sinful than lumping all kinists together with Christian Identity adherents and doing so in a most false and malicious manner?

I am sensing a definite lack of consistency here.

If you do not understand the rather clear differences in Christian Kinism and Christian Identity, then why are you even speaking about what you have not bothered to study enough so that you know about what you speak? I will not deny the existence of a possible Identity adherent in the Kinist woodshed, but one does not the whole group make as much as you might like it to in this instance.

Matthew 7 speaks of being judged by the measure you use to judge others. You might consider the implications of that.

Also, a hint in dealing with this blog you hate so much. Your first reaction will be knee-jerk and emotional. Get over it! Ignore the emotional and deal clinically with the substance. Use Scripture honestly and in context to attempt sound refutation and you will be suprised at how respectfully your argument is treated. Just repeat this mantra over and over to remind yourself. rant bad refutation good - rant bad refutation good


This might be a good time and place to give a succinct explanation of the differences between Kinism and the Christian Identity movement. I'm all ears--er, eyes.

I'm not an expert, but will gladly provide the basic flyover as I understand it.

There are two groups that are often referred to as Christian Identity (CI). It appears that the Anglo-Israel group believes that the British (sometimes Celtic peoples) are the lost tribes of Israel. In regards to the salvation of other races their stance is unclear to me.

Seedliners use Genesis 3:15 to indicate that Eve had congress with the devil thus producing Cain. As far as I can tell they feel that the Whites are of the race of Adam, and all others the seed of Cain (It's supposedly a story from the Talmud). Thus the Bible is speaking only to Whites, only Whites can be saved, yada, yada, yada. Kind of a Chabad Lubavitch for Whites.

If I am wrong here, please, please, someone correct me as I do not wish to misrepresent what I have read or been told.

I quit looking into the Seedliners because I reject that our salvation is based on race, flat out. There is no scriptural warrant for it. The Talmud is hardly a credible source for anything.

I stopped looking at AI because it is irrelevant to me if I have some "original tribe" genetics or not. I know my people and they are mine, but my genetic structure, as with anyone else, does not determine in any form or fashion my standing before the Lord.

These strange philosophies are distinctly different from kinism which denies the salvation of no race, but rather honors the separation God intended. For those that would answer that Pentecost or the Great Commission reversed Babel, answer me why the Holy Spirit would inspire a verse not only extolling separation of the peoples, but giving the reason behind it post-Pentecost and post-Great Commission. The verses in question are Acts 17:26-27. Is the Holy Spirit lying or is man indeed meant to be separated?

Does separation mean we deal only with our own? Of course not. Don't be silly, separation is not isolation, not even if you are Amish.

I believe in attempting to perpetuate my ethnos, but am also well aware that if the judgement of the Lord has indeed fallen on White folks that most of us are doomed.

I asked some valid questions above and await eagerly the explanation of why if we are all equal certain things are sinful for me, but not for other folks commenting and authoring here.

How does one read Acts 17:26-7 as a call to separation? The nations came from one man and they have determined periods and boundaries of their dwelling place. That has nothing to do with intermarriage, nor is it a command about such. And in fact, there is no "white" nation anyway. Can a Brit marry a Frenchwoman? Different nations! Must not mix! This whole segementing of a white "race" vs. black "race" is silly given the intermixing of the races that has already occured for thousands of years.

Acts 17:22-32 (ESV):

22 So Paul, standing in the midst of the Areopagus, said: "Men of Athens, I perceive that in every way you are very religious. 23 For as I passed along and observed the objects of your worship, I found also an altar with this inscription, 'To the unknown god.' What therefore you worship as unknown, this I proclaim to you. 24 The God who made the world and everything in it, being Lord of heaven and earth, does not live in temples made by man, 25 nor is he served by human hands, as though he needed anything, since he himself gives to all mankind life and breath and everything. 26 And he made from one man every nation of mankind to live on all the face of the earth, having determined allotted periods and the boundaries of their dwelling place, 27 that they should seek God, in the hope that they might feel their way toward him and find him. Yet he is actually not far from each one of us, 28 for

"'In him we live and move and have our being';

as even some of your own poets have said,

"'For we are indeed his offspring.'

29 Being then God's offspring, we ought not to think that the divine being is like gold or silver or stone, an image formed by the art and imagination of man. 30 The times of ignorance God overlooked, but now he commands all people everywhere to repent, 31 because he has fixed a day on which he will judge the world in righteousness by a man whom he has appointed; and of this he has given assurance to all by raising him from the dead."

32 Now when they heard of the resurrection of the dead, some mocked. But others said, "We will hear you again about this." 33 So Paul went out from their midst. 34 But some men joined him and believed, among whom also were Dionysius the Areopagite and a woman named Damaris and others with them.


I for one don't see "and you shouldn't adopt black kids" in there.

The Greek word in Acts is "ethnos". You may recognize it as it directly pertains to ethnicity not the modern nation-state.

As to some of the other, I have no answers. I'm always looking and exploring, but no solid answers.

I am concerned about the flip side of Acts 17 though. If we are attempting to mix things out of existence that God has separated, thus hindering people's groping for Him then we become a stumbling block. Jesus didn't seem to think very much of those. How do we know absolutely for sure? Again, no answer here - still looking.

"How is it right to allow to once again apply the "dirty-eared inbred" label to kinists without censure and yet call for charges and eventual excommunication for the sin of calling someone a monkey?"

Lawrence, "dirty-eared inbred" was my phrase, not Tim's. It wasn't meant to be so much descriptive as derogatory. I have little actual knowledge of their personal hygiene and only anecdotal information regarding their ancestry; I merely wanted to denigrate their intelligence based on what I've read both here and at Little Geneva. (Although it could be argued that the opposite of miscegenation is consanguinity, which would make "inbred" a positive thing in kinist circles.) The phrase was pure ad hominem (ad imbecilem?), and if Tim wishes to delete my comment with it, he's welcome to.

However, the phrase is equivalent to neither "wetback" nor "nigger," nor are the two phrases similar to each other. "Wetback" refers specifically to an illegal immigrant, not to Hispanics at large, and while impolite, is only truly offensive when it's applied to someone who isn't one. "Nigger" is merely a corruption of a formerly polite word. it's not actually descriptive of a person's personality or actions, just of their melanin content.

To answer your other question, I referred specifically to the kinists at the blog that was lambasting the Baylys, not to the greater group of kinists. Nor have I any opinion regarding their excommunication; I wasn't even sure Presbyterians did that.

However, a little background may be in order. My own ancestry is mongrelized European, mostly Welsh and Norwegian. (Which could probably be said of any Welshman born north of Caerfyrddin, if you go back far enough.) My wife is American Indian, with Dutch on her mother's side. Three of my kids are originally hers, and their father is California Mexican. But not really Mexican. His father is Basque and his mother Yaqui and German; both families are fairly recent immigrants. So are those kids white enough for me to raise, or not? Is a half-breed Indian okay for me to marry? With whom should my other miscegenated children live? And if you saw us without knowing any of this, you'd think we were just one more white family.

This is why I apply phrases like "dirty-eared" to kinists at large. Unless I have entirely misunderstood the term, the central tenet of kinism is that families like mine should not exist. That I find repulsive enough to warrant direct rudeness. I'd say the same thing to their faces that I do here.

To Jack's Pipe:

Absolutely. A recent article in the local paper by a professional geneticist exposed how idiotic the central thesis of THE DA VINCI CODE is -- the very notion that a "pure line" could be preserved over centuries is impossible. Intermarriage is a biological necessity for survival. Doing whatever might need to be done to preserve a "pure line" would by the mathematical necessities involved in reproduction result in the rather quick extinction of that line, probably due to genetic defects and deaths.

The same idiocy is embodied in any line of white-supremecist claptrap. The very idea that there's such a thing as a purely white race by this point in history is foolishness in the utmost extreme. Especially when you consider the sea-faring empires of all the centuries of history and how those sailors, ahem, got around. I know that some of the most ardent race-purists (of any ethnic background) and Anglo-Celt supremacists in Southern states like TN and NC have plenty of American Indian blood in their veins -- which makes them (historically speaking) part Mongolians! Cherokee and Seminole come to mind.

So the very idea of a "pure" genetic line anywhere on the planet is a fable believed by children.

Lawrence, That seems to me to be a fair summery of the Identity view as I understand it. I once thought I might write about this subject & did a great deal of research on & off over several years so I have a fairly extensive collection of the litt. on these views.

The only thing that I would add is that the British Israel people were generally speaking orthodox christians in all respects, the only way to distinguish them from other (non-BI) christians was the view that the British people were desended from the "lost tribes".

This view was most popular in the 19th cent. & was held by many prominent churchmen in nearly every protestant denomination. Both Queen Victoria & her grandson Wilhelm held this view and spoke publicly about it. As you might imagine it was most popular in english speaking contries & especially in the commanwealth.

The popularity of this view declined with the decline of the British empire. Many of the biblical arguments in favor of the BI position were similar to dispensational methods of biblical interpretation, i.e. a supposed "litteral" interpretation of prophetic passages & a confusion of Israel/Church into a sort of semi-zionistic view of Israel/Britain.

Today the older type of BI views are almost dead with only a few mostly older IODE types still holding on. The British Israel World Federation is still in existence in N. Ireland & it's most prominant spokesman in a member of the Free Presbyterian church. Most of their efforts seem focused on reviving Historicism among reformed christians today.

As reguards Identity Christianity it is a 20th century American version of the BI teaching that differs in several ways.
First; it is mostly heretical. I am aware of some few exceptions, notably one group in NC that is Calvinist, postmill, & theonomic!
Most hold to a seed-line (talmudic) view. Many are anialationist (sp?).
Second; It is often infused with explicetly pagan ideas & symbols.
Thirdly; often it is a vey thin veneer of religion for what are in fact neo-nazi, or klan groups.

Prominent Identity leaders include Wesly Swift, mentor of Aryan Nations founder Richard Butler.
The AN btw is an expicit race cult they say "My religion is my race". They are the insperation for Matt Hale of the (explicitly pagan) Church of the Creator--Creators being his name for the white race.
Others like Pete Peters (Church of Christ) are more mainstream (consider the context) evangelical sounding but are heretical in many ways.

Hope this helps.

> I've warned against these men on this
> blog, and now I do so again. If you've
> ever been inclined to read them, don't!
> Don't search for their site; don't read
> their vile bile;


You're only creating more hits for these people by quoting them. Even with no hyperlink, you're providing a quick & easy way to find the site via a phrase search on one's favorite search engine.

What can you say to this filth, anyway? Let these people swim in the sewer. There's no reason to pollute your blog with their garbage.

> Please explain this to me:

> How it can be right to take
> the actions of a few of a
> group and apply it to the
> whole group with the kinists
> with impunity, but sin worthy
> of excommunication to apply
> attributes of the others (crime
> in Blacks for instance) to the
> greater group?

Ideology (which is a choice) vs. skin pigmentation (which is not).

Wow, that was easy.

Thank you Joel. I am mostly Welsh, with some Irish, Scottish, French, German, and some English tossed in for good measure. Basically a Euromutt. Other kinists know this and have no problem with that. There are fine lines of separation that are not defined anywhere and I am not sure they can be.

I know what you mean by Mexican, but not Mexican. What is a Mexican anyway? Growing up on the border I met Irish, Spanish, German , Italian, and Native Indian "Mexicans". After a summer working in the fields, I was heard speaking Spanish in public and asked if I was Mexican or Gringo. I'm not sure you can really define Mexican, maybe it is just a state of mind. Admittedly, it is also a sticking point for me regarding Kinism and one I come back to again and again.

Kevin, I do not recall saying that Scripture directly related to not adopting African babies and and had not intended my words to be taken as regarding adoption in particular. I did, unfortunately, make an unwise choice in making my frustration with what I saw as some glaring inconsistencies evident on this particular post and should have placed it on some other, so I see how you could have thought that was my point. For any extra grief that might have caused anyone I apologize.

In an ideal world the Africans would have the means to raise all of their babies to be the best Africans they could be and none would be in any sort of institution or in need of adoption. The same is true of my people. But this is the real world and all we can do is use Scripture and God-given conviction to navigate the best path we can through it. I am not wise enough to say that no one should ever should adopt an African baby ever, nor do I see saying so in the foreseeable future.

Lawrence and Kevin,

Thank you for your explanations. Very informative. Now, is Kinism monolithic, or are there several major subgroups there, too? It seems from what I have heard that it could span a very long gamut, from people who like and respect black folk but think miscegenation is wrong, all the way to people who consider them objectively inferior and are repulsed by them.


About the word "ethnos": The difference between "ethnos" and our modern word "nation" is not that "ethnos" means "race" and "nation" means "political entity." The difference is that "ethnos" is much _broader_ a term. It _can_ mean "race," depending on context, but more generally it just means "group of people." That group might be defined racially, geographically, by shared custom, by shared occupation, by shared action, by cultural affiliation, or by political allegiance.

The first definition for "ethnos" in Liddell and Scott (the definitive dictionary for classical Greek) is "a number of people living together, a company, a body of men." When it gets to more specific translations, the list is long: a host, a flock, a nation, a people, a province, a class, a caste, a tribe, a guild, a sex. If somebody has told you that the Greek word "ethnos" always refers to blood relation, he isn't telling you the truth.

Eric, Good question unfortunatly I do not have a good answer!
As far as it goes it seems that kinnism is not a "movement" more of an idea. The advocates of it on the internet a mixed lot. Hey it's just like the reformed faith or christianity in that respect.

As I understand it at its simplest it is a desire to promote (preserve?) the people who have made western christianity/culture. In other words how do I honour my fathers while teaching that they were all vile sinners in need of excomunication?

This is a real issue that can not be glossed over by saying "Dabney was a fallen man". True enough as far as it goes but it does nothing to tell me how all of these godly men were so wrong & a few 20th century comunists were right.

My primary intrest in the discussion is how do our duties to our fathers on one hand and our children on the other work themselves out in real terms. It seems to me that extended families/ethnicity plays some part.


No one is right about everything, and probably no one is ever completely wrong about everything either. One age often sees clearly the sins of another age, and sits in judgment while disregarding its own sins. It's not surprising that even a Communist in the 20th century might see clearly the speck in the eye of a 19th century Christian, though he is quite blind to his own beam.

"I am mostly Welsh, with some Irish, Scottish, French, German, and some English tossed in for good measure. Basically a Euromutt. Other kinists know this and have no problem with that. There are fine lines of separation that are not defined anywhere and I am not sure they can be."

Lawrence, there are two things here that tend to back up my point. The first is that other kinists "have no problem with" your ancestry. That's jolly charitable of them. I have difficulty imagining circumstances under which your ancestry should be any of their business in the first place, nor why you should give a rat's patoot what they think about it. What do you do if they DO have a problem with it? Leave the room as though you had an offensive odor about you? Apologize? Obviously you can't actually change it, so what would be an appropriate response to someone else finding your genetic background not to their liking?

The second is that there are, as you put it, "fine lines of separation that are not defined anywhere." Of course there are. Your remarks about what is and isn't Mexican illustrate that perfectly. "Mexican" is a nationality, just as "Canadian" is. What you consider ethnic distinctions are entirely arbitrary, and usually based solely on visible characteristics. You call yourself Welsh, but how is that so? Were you born there? Have you immigrated to there? A wyt ti'n siarad iaith y nefoedd? Or is it that the most recent ancestors you have that weren't born in America came from Wales, so you think of yourself as "Welsh?"

Let's take the most obvious example: the American black. He is black only by comparison to us pink people. It's easy to think of him as dark until you see him standing next to an actual African. In fact, his ancestry is a conglomeration of African and European, perhaps with some American Indian thrown in. It's entirely possible that the majority of his ancestors are European. Heck, especially if you're a southerner, you may well share ancestors with him. Why, then, is he considered African rather than European, if not on the very shallow basis of appearance? Why can you and I lay claim to Europeanness and he cannot?

Or, from another angle, I have at least four Mayflower connections. I'm about an eighth-generation Washingtonian. My most recent ancestors who were immigrants were one set of Norwegian great-grandparents. Why should I be considered European in ancestry rather than American? Because "American" is not considered an ethnic designation. But on what basis? Why are the Welsh or Norwegians considered ethnic groups and Americans not? And if "American" IS in fact a valid ethnic identity, why is my ethnicity any different from the black American down the street? His ancestors have probably been here longer than some of mine.

I know this has been sort of long-winded, but I feel the kinist position (which I confess you expressed a lot more politely than I expected) is at its very best based on faulty logic, and at its worst a transparent excuse for bullying and arrogance.

"Thank you Joel. I am mostly Welsh, with some Irish, Scottish, French, German, and some English tossed in for good measure. Basically a Euromutt. Other kinists know this and have no problem with that. There are fine lines of separation that are not defined anywhere and I am not sure they can be."

And so these "fine lines" detonate the argument ao about nations. These arbitrary lines are really nothing more than the biases of kinists.

Joel, if they did not like my ethnicity then I would not waste time, mine or theirs after it became evident in discussion that reconciliation on this issue was unlikely for whatever reason. I would hope that we would each go about our business like gentlemen.

As far as Wales, it is the place from which the majority of my ancestery derives as far as we can tell. Euromutt.com was taken at the time. :) Natively, I am a Texan.

There are many questions and few answers whenever one discusses race with someone else and the knees seem to start a jerking. When exploring it for ones own benefit the questions are just as numerous. Your Afro/Euro gentleman being a case in point. He raises many questions for you and I could ask many, many more myself. For a coherent system to exist these questions, at least a fair number of them, must have answers. Kinism isn't there yet. It is a developing system with varying interpretations. Of course the possiblity does exist that I could be wrong and be the odd man out and everything is a done deal but I didn't get the memo. Time will tell.

Civilized discussion is more likely to generate light; impolite discussion more heat.

As far as faulty logic, maybe. Either position is pretty prone to it in direct proportion to ones emotional investment. I am seeking the right of things with Scripture and my emotional investment low enough on this issue that I am fairly open. That and my very "on the border" laid back attitude is also why I don't scream about this stuff.

Actually, I have seen both the kinist position (thou shalt not mix) and the opposite (thou must mix) used to bully. It is unfortunate, but when dealing with an emotionally charged topic and fallen men this happens. We must strive to remember we are brothers and not treat each other as the enemy. If we do not do this the true enemy will have made handy use and fools of us both.

Lawrence and others,

Please read Numbers 12:1-15. In it, you will find that Moses (an Israelite) married a Cush-ite (Ethiopian?) woman. Miriam and Aaron despised Moses because of this. They took on a proud and arrogant attitude toward Moses. At once, the Lord came to Moses' aid. The Lord rebuked Miriam and Aaron for speaking a word against His servant. God did not condemn Moses' for marrying outside his ethnic group, rather He said that Moses "is faithful in all my house" (v. 7). God judged Miriam and made her leprous. Aaron pleaded with Moses to forgive their foolish sin. Moses then pleaded with God to heal Miriam. The Lord heard Moses' prayer and healed Miriam. But then God basically sent Miriam to "the naughty chair" for seven days to teach her a lesson.

The reason God told the Israelites not to intermarry was that foreign women would cause them to worship false gods. It was a spiritual issue, not an ethnic issue. Now the command is to not be unequally yoked with unbelievers (2 Cor. 6:14). Thus God would have no problem with a Christian Englishman marrying a Christian Japanese woman. However, if a Christian Englishman married an unbelieving Englishwoman(?), he would be sinning.


Thanks ever so much for helping lift the caliber of the discussion in this blog above the name calling so prevalent when kinism is mentioned. Good questions have been asked and good (biblical)answers given, and acknowledgement of the areas where questions/points of discussion still remain.

As a kinist who celebrates the differences between human lines, my personal hope is that those of us of European ancestry are not subsumed into a bland mix of cultures and colors that could end up looking like the human version of the cookie-cutter strip malls that propagate everywhere these days. As a teacher, I have heard many mixed race (you name the racial combination, I have seen everything, I think) students struggle with their identities in intensely painful ways, so I have no fantasy that everything will be all right if we just mix up our genes enough, although I will confess to having thought that in the past.

I do believe that the Lord will judge us as to how we behave towards all individuals, so I treat people as equally as a fallen human being can. Still, I would hope that the extinction of those of us who are of European descent is not the result of the natural consequences of poorly thought out actions performed by people with good intentions.

God bless,

There is simply no command in Scripture to avoid subsuming ethnically, the command is to avoid subsuming spiritually. All of this is recycled from the last thread on kinism, which is why I will recycle the best post in the last thread, from Jack Brooks:

Morasoom, your post is a perfect example of why I call this stuff "lying", and why it's so infuriating. It is a sin to bind what God has not bound. Nobody anywhere is talking about whether culture-groups should like and appreciate what's good about themselves. To characterize "kinism" as being about that is lying. To blithely fluff off who we all are in Christ is wicked, and shows that someone's head isn't spiritually screwed on straight.

To claim that this topic is only about whether ethnic distinctives exist is a lie. To say that other peoples' godless ethnocentrism justifies or validates kinism is a lie. What it does show is that we're all sinning, regardless of race. To claim that this is about whether different ethnic groups are superior or inferior to each other is a lie.

The white race must say to the kinist, "Why do you call me good? There is but one who is good."

Righteously waving the banner of anti-political-correctness around doesn't make kinism any less ignorant or sinful. And it's an insult, as if most readers are so dumb that they can't see past the obviousness of that tactic.

To teach that the Bible forbids the intermarrying of the races makes one a false teacher, and should make you subject to discipline.

Paul tells us that everything he was, ethnically and culturally and religiously and professionally, compared to the saving knowledge of Christ was skubalos -- the rough English slang equivalent being "crap." Our whiteness accrues to our damnation, because we anglos share in those distinct national and cultural sins particularly embraced by Anglo western moderns. All (believing) races are reconciled to God through Christ, in the body of His flesh through death -- Colossians 1:20-21.

So let's get it straight:

1. This isn't about liking ourselves.
2. This isn't about the reality of ethnicity.
3. This isn't about being pro or anti-PC.
4. No race is intrinsically superior to another.
5. Identity in Christ overrides everything else.

Add new comment