← Autodidact Archive · Original Dissent · Petr

A great parody of liberal-"Christian" anti-racist rhetoric

Thread ID: 20018 | Posts: 9 | Started: 2005-09-05

Wayback Archive

Petr [OP]

2005-09-05 15:23 | User Profile

[I]IMHO, a God-approved form of "racism" is to promote and protect members of your own race - that is, your extended family - more than members of other races/extended families/neighbors.

A God-[B]dis[/B]approved form of racism/familism would be to shoot down your neighbors in order to give their house to your children...[/I]

[url]http://littlegeneva.com/?p=342[/url]

[FONT=Trebuchet MS] Our friend Ralph Watson just sent this to me:[/FONT] [FONT=Georgia] [SIZE=5]Fight Familism[/SIZE][SIZE=3]

[B]by Rev. Jack O’Kobian[/B]

Modern Christians have made great strides against racism. But much more needs to be done if we are to be true servants of Equality.

Now we must confront a form of racism that most people don’t even recognize as such. This is the sin of familism, the preference for one’s children over other children. Admittedly this seems natural, but in the fallen world most sins seem natural. Only as we follow the spiritual truth of Equality can we rise above this sinful material world.

Do you doubt that familism is racism? Consider how racists often justify their hate by saying that it’s really no different from preferring one’s child. And consider how familists often use such terms as “my flesh and blood.” The similarity to the Nazi’s “blood and soil” is obvious. Only a bigot would disagree.

[B] In the words of no less than Martin Luther King, the only basis for judging another human being is the “content of character.” Thus if a “father” prefers his “son” to another child who is morally superior to that “son,” he is clearly a bigot because he values flesh more than morality. Such a “father” clearly views his “family”—physical traits, genes and all—as a miniature Master Race.[/B]

While it is true that the Old Testament affirms family lineage and says “honor thy father and thy mother,” the law of the OT no longer applies because now, under the New Testament, we are under grace instead of law. Jesus said, “call no man your father.” Grace is spirit and abolishes physical distinctions.

Throughout history we can see the evil caused by familism, wars of dynasty, family feuds, jealousy, and favoritism. Blood ties lead to bloodshed. It is the shame of the Church that Marxists have long understood the evils of familism better than Christians and have worked to attack this and other sins against Equality. Indeed, it was the Marxist Leon Trotsky who invented the term “racism.”

To fight familism, the Church must set the long-range goal of raising all children in common. In the words of Hillary Clinton, “It takes a village to raise a child.” As a preliminary step to that goal, Christian parents should make a practice of swapping their newborns with other “families.”

Some “mothers,” of course, will object, and they will play on the sentiments of a mother holding her infant child. Nevertheless, we must cut through this sentiment and understand the sin that motivates it. The extent to which a “mother” focuses on her child is the extent to which she tunes out other children—and that is hate.

Although abortion is a bad thing, it may be serving what is ultimately a good purpose. When a woman has the child in her womb killed, it desensitizes her to warmth and favoritism toward children of her own, and thereby opens her heart to impartial feeling toward all children. Gay marriage also may have a beneficial side by undercutting the prestige of familism.

We should never fail to denounce familism whenever we encounter it, even in tough cases. For example, if a couple has just lost its child in an accident, the moral response is to withhold sympathy for their grief. Tell the couple “to get over it” because there are plenty of living children around for them to love, many with a “content of character” superior to that of “their” deceased child.

Admittedly, the path to True Equality will not be easy, but it is the only way we can purge the sin of earth with the spirit of heaven. One day this love will trample out the vineyards of hate.[/SIZE][/FONT]

[FONT=Trebuchet MS]Before any of you scoff at this parody, keep in mind that kinists are called sinful for appreciating their connection to extended family. In our time, being a few generations removed makes all the difference between being a loving relative and a hateful racist.[/FONT]

Petr

2005-09-06 12:35 | User Profile

Ping!

Okiereddust

2005-09-06 14:14 | User Profile

Are you sure this was a parady Petr? I get the feeling a lot of lineral "Christians" would think this perfectly legit.

Petr

2005-09-06 14:34 | User Profile

Ahem, Rev. Jack O'Kobian = Jacobin

Petr

Quantrill

2005-09-06 14:59 | User Profile

This parody does raise a legitimate point. It is accepted that we have a greater responsibility to our own children than to the children of others; do we have a greater responsibility to our own siblings than to others? If so, then what about our first cousins? If so, then what about our second cousins? If so, then what about our third cousins? Since a race is nothing more than an extended family, and 'racism' is wrong, then there must be some precise point at which it stops being moral to have a greater responsibility for your own kin than for strangers. I would be curious to hear someone's opinion on exactly where that point lies.

Petr

2005-09-06 15:21 | User Profile

[FONT=Arial][COLOR=Navy][B][I] - "It is accepted that we have a greater responsibility to our own children than to the children of others; do we have a greater responsibility to our own siblings than to others?" [/I] [/B] [/COLOR] [/FONT]

To a great majority of mankind, this would not be a question at all: in practically every non-Western country, clan-system is very important and your responsibilities are by no means restricted merely to your nuclear family.

Heck, before the advent of modern era even Westerners considered this to be self-evident.

A famous Arab proverb expresses this progressing hierarchy of loyalties:

[I]"I and my brothers and my cousins against the stranger; I and my brothers against my cousin; I, against my brothers."[/I]

[FONT=Arial][B][I][COLOR=Navy] - "there must be some precise point at which it stops being moral to have a greater responsibility for your own kin than for strangers"[/COLOR][/I][/B][/FONT]

I am not sure there exists any official turning-point, but think about this scenario: your own son, a rotten scoundrel, is just about to kill some totally innocent strangers just to amuse himself. Would you be ready to kill him instead?

Petr

Happy Hacker

2005-09-06 15:26 | User Profile

He who is not guilty of Familism is worse than a heathen. Bible says so.

Quantrill

2005-09-06 16:09 | User Profile

[QUOTE=Petr][font=Arial][color=Navy]*** - "It is accepted that we have a greater responsibility to our own children than to the children of others; do we have a greater responsibility to our own siblings than to others?" * ** [/color] [/font]

To a great majority of mankind, this would not be a question at all: in practically every non-Western country, clan-system is very important and your responsibilities are by no means restricted merely to your nuclear family.

Heck, before the advent of modern era even Westerners considered this to be self-evident.

A famous Arab proverb expresses this progressing hierarchy of loyalties:

"I and my brothers and my cousins against the stranger; I and my brothers against my cousin; I, against my brothers."

[font=Arial][color=Navy] - "there must be some precise point at which it stops being moral to have a greater responsibility for your own kin than for strangers"[/color][/font]

I am not sure there exists any official turning-point, but think about this scenario: your own son, a rotten scoundrel, is just about to kill some totally innocent strangers just to amuse himself. Would you be ready to kill him instead?[/QUOTE] Petr, It is quite obvious to me that any definition of an exact point at which love of family metamorphoses into 'racism' is pure sophistry. I was playing devil's advocate in my earlier response, and my questions were designed to show the untenability of the egalitarian position. Sometimes sarcasm or irony do not come through well in internet postings. I steadfastly believe that we Christians have greater responsibilities to our own kin than to Universal Man.

Petr

2005-09-06 17:00 | User Profile

[COLOR=Navy][FONT=Arial][B][I] - "It is quite obvious to me that any definition of an exact point at which love of family metamorphoses into 'racism' is pure sophistry." [/I] [/B] [/FONT] [/COLOR]

I believe that this saying of Jesus Christ has great relevance here:

[COLOR=DarkRed][B]"Anyone who loves his father or mother more than me is not worthy of me; anyone who loves his son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me."

Paraphrasing: [B]he who loves his race/clan/extended family more than me is not worthy of me[/B].

Just like loving our relatives more than others is perfectly natural and acceptable feeling, warm feelings towards our own ethnic group are likewise so.

However, in this fallen world almost any noble feeling can turn into an exaggerated perversion, and so our love for our race or family may turn into [B]idolatry[/B], so that we will adopt an amoral "my family/race, right or wrong" -attitude and sociopathic indifference or even poisonous hostility towards outsiders. Talmudic Jews are a typical example of this.

[COLOR=Navy][FONT=Arial][B][I] - "I steadfastly believe that we Christians have greater responsibilities to our own kin than to Universal Man."[/I][/B][/FONT][/COLOR]

I agree.

Petr