Silence is the greatest persecution -Blaise Pascal

Coming Full Circle on Kinsim?

Witness the confusion that can arise when a person sets an a priori equalitarianism doctrine above scripture. This falls under the rubric of female “sympathy”, a beautiful force for benevolence that was intended to be channeled and restrained by Church, father, and husband. Absent such restraint you have feminism and liberalism. She’s sorry she took her husband’s word that R.L. Dabney’s views were consistent with her own without reading Dabney herself, a regret that seems to arise from her shaking off the shackles of “Patriarchy”, and resolving that no man will tell her what to believe. She will be the governess of her mind, to discern for herself whether the fruit is good to eat and desirable to make one wise. Sound familiar?

But is not a woman’s understanding of things biblical, things holy supposed to proceed from the judgment of men under proper authority? Men under the authority of an orthodox church and a church under the authority of the Holy Spirit and the revealed Word? This is why widows and divorcees were asked to be under the male leadership of the church, that the feminine tendency to “freedom” lead not in its excesses to anarchic forces in society and the church itself.

The author of the article is the victim of “disappointments” in supposedly traditionalistic or “conservative” Christian leaders. Perhaps she was simply looking to the wrong ones. But we are tempted to conclude that her disappointments arise rather from the unwillingness to believe what the Bible actually says, rather than the programming being beamed into her head from the industry of equality, a highly profitable enterprise that is directly responsible for the murder of 100 million people in the 20th century. How many more must die to make men equal and “democratic”? There is nothing more egalitarian than Stalinism or Maoism. It is only thusly confused that the so-called “Monroe-Moscow Axis”, the League of the South, RC Sproul Jr., Howard Phillips, the Constitution party, and Kinism could be conflated into the same category of disappointments, of movements gone astray. It appears that the author, a Cynthia Gee, approaches the selection of movements to follow with all the fickleness of a woman looking for a handbag. But is she really looking for a handbag, or a means to be able to say “I belong” and “I’m acceptable”? And to whom would she belong if she could? As evidenced by her earlier blog, with all the patriarchy supporters (such as James McDonald of Homeschooling Today magazine) scurrying to deny her charges of “racism”, she’s simply looking for whiskey from a bottle of wine. A kinder and gentler patriarchism, a traditionalism that will pass the sniff test of worldliness, and ultimately, feminism.

The auteurs of fashionable opinion, it would appear, given her antipathy to “racism”, (a term that, in all probability, were she to adequately define, she might find no opposition to whatsoever), have the enviable position of defining what type of Christianity is acceptable to follow. How the church was poisoned by fashionable opinion is a long and sad tale, but it will suffice here to note that little details like the meanings of words are not its strong suit. Fashionable opinion deals in mind control, plain and simple. Its primary tool is the “big lie” that is made more palatable by the televised sonorities of “statesmen” and what are called opinion makers. Indeed, it is a wonder that the overtly sinister overtones of the latter term are noted by so few. I mean, after all, how does one make opinion? Certainly not by the arts of persuasion. Here is a news flash to liberal Christians (oxymoron): Christianity is not an “-ism”, it is faith in the finished work of Jesus Christ, and repentance unto obedience. The culture proceeds from the cultus of the religion. The religion of Amerika is equality, a friend of mine once said, and it looks like he’s right. Maybe materialism, which I have claimed in the past to be the religion of Amerika, is simply a species of equality, or a consequence of it. Yes, that’s it. Materialism is a consequence of equality.  Kinism asks people to “come out from among them, and be ye separate”. That is the ultimate separatism, is it not? The cultural (and we would argue racial) “secessionism” of the Bible precedes the political, it is not subsequent to it. Kinism merely points to the bible and asks people to “submit to this”. It is in this sense that Kinism can be understood as essentially a hermeneutic idea. 

The author of the site is a self-styled cult exit counselor, and one gathers that she finds kinism to be a cult. But kinism is the exact opposite of a cult. Kinism has no official leadership, no official propaganda organs, no meetings, no organization, no rules, no mailing list, no NLP (neuro-linguistic programming) such as is used by the equality (advertising) industry, no talking points, no compounds, no flags, no tattoos, no costumes, no freaky haircuts, no guru, no budget, and no income. Kinism is an idea that people are free to adopt or not, as they see fit.

And that’s really the point, isn’t it? A society in which we go “shopping” for ideologies as the author of the article has is a broken society, it has failed the one meaningful test of society: commonality and unity. And a society that fails this test is the one she points to as being the ideal? America is a cultural sewer by the activity of the forces in whose interests equality lies. It is here that Kinism departs from all the aforementioned fads. Kinism is not an ideology, it is simply the pointing to the corpse of Christendom and the asking of the question cui bono. Kinism is nothing but orthodox Occidental Christianity, as it was and as it might again be.

Kinists are rather accustomed to attacks from the shadows. Rather than confront Kinists directly, its opponents, such as Cythia Gee, seek to use fashionable opinion to ruin lives and reputations. People have stopped arguing directly with Kinists on the merits, because they grew tired of losing the arguments in publicly humiliating ways. Their new strategy is to employ the tools of the terrorist. In all of this one thing is clear to me: the New Jerusalem is not Suffragette City. 

Comments: