Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
FURTHER exposing the twisted mind of CPAC slavery apologist Scott Terry
I recently watched this Cenk Uygur video where he analyzed video of Scott Terry's trolling at this year's CPAC minority outreach meeting, in which the crowd was more sympathetic with Terry's crazy talk such as suggesting that slavery helped black Americans while booing a non-conservative who attended:
In an interview with Examiner.com columnist Dan Poole, Terry articulated his beliefs further:
Q. Apparently Think Progress took you out of context in order to smear you for supposedly believing that blacks should be "permanently subservient to whites." Would you like to clarify what you actually said?
A. I don't even know which statement they're referring to when they make that claim. I'm hoping (since it's so incendiary) they publish the recording so I can interact with my words in context. Unfortunately, I haven't seen it anywhere on the net.
But regardless: Do I really think blacks should be “permanently subservient to whites?” Not at all. This may sound naive to modernist ears, but I believe God created all the diverse people groups, each with a unique purpose. Blacks have a role to play in creation, just like whites, just like Asians, and all the others. We'll best fulfill this Godly "telos" if we're in an environment where we can flourish and grow freely.
Q. Would it be correct to describe you as a Southern nationalist? Or would you describe yourself as something else?
A. It's accurate to call me a Southern Nationalist, sure, but I am only marginally affiliated with that crowd. Really, I describe myself as a “Kinist” – which means: I rely on an underlying Calvinist theology to support my racial realism and ethnic nationalism. Calling me a white nationalist, or a southern nationalist, would be too narrow, then, as I think "nationalism" itself is the normative social order for all men, not just whites or southerners.
A. I don't even know which statement they're referring to when they make that claim. I'm hoping (since it's so incendiary) they publish the recording so I can interact with my words in context. Unfortunately, I haven't seen it anywhere on the net.
But regardless: Do I really think blacks should be “permanently subservient to whites?” Not at all. This may sound naive to modernist ears, but I believe God created all the diverse people groups, each with a unique purpose. Blacks have a role to play in creation, just like whites, just like Asians, and all the others. We'll best fulfill this Godly "telos" if we're in an environment where we can flourish and grow freely.
Q. Would it be correct to describe you as a Southern nationalist? Or would you describe yourself as something else?
A. It's accurate to call me a Southern Nationalist, sure, but I am only marginally affiliated with that crowd. Really, I describe myself as a “Kinist” – which means: I rely on an underlying Calvinist theology to support my racial realism and ethnic nationalism. Calling me a white nationalist, or a southern nationalist, would be too narrow, then, as I think "nationalism" itself is the normative social order for all men, not just whites or southerners.
Q. This is a bit of a broad question, but in summary, what do you stand for?
A. I'm just a blue-collar Southern guy, who loves his people and his ancestors and his God. “Kinism,” I've found, provides the intellectual, spiritual, and even poetic support for all these things.
A. I'm just a blue-collar Southern guy, who loves his people and his ancestors and his God. “Kinism,” I've found, provides the intellectual, spiritual, and even poetic support for all these things.
As Wikipedia explains:
Jump to: navigation, search
Kinism is the belief that the God-ordained social order for mankind is "tribal and ethnic," and focuses on man's duty to "love one's own kind". Kinists advocate the idea that extended families should live together in large groups. They believe the ideal and normative social order for families – and by extension communities, states and nations – is one defined by race and blood, not propositions or borders, and that this natural order forms the proper and lasting bonds of affection and loyalty for any legitimate society.[1] It is considered an offshoot of Christian Reconstructionism that originated among anti-immigration traditionalists in the Southern United States.[2]
Kinism is the belief that the God-ordained social order for mankind is "tribal and ethnic," and focuses on man's duty to "love one's own kind". Kinists advocate the idea that extended families should live together in large groups. They believe the ideal and normative social order for families – and by extension communities, states and nations – is one defined by race and blood, not propositions or borders, and that this natural order forms the proper and lasting bonds of affection and loyalty for any legitimate society.[1] It is considered an offshoot of Christian Reconstructionism that originated among anti-immigration traditionalists in the Southern United States.[2]
Y'know, it's quite easy to live in a secular liberal bubble and laugh and mock at creationists, Christian reconstructionists, and other such kooks as just fringe rural dwellers. But when these types of people start creeping into CPAC and boasting about how they're typical middle-class blue-collar guys you've gotta wonder: this white nationalist/exceptionalist BS is hitting the mainstream, and your next-door neighbors and co-workers actually believe that stuff.
