Anyway …  in this recent clip linked above, Doug expresses glee over the possibility that Hegseth IS a zionist, all because it puts a damper on those Doug label’s “Aunti-Zemite” and that crowd’s hope of prevailing against the advance of Zionism in America.

The great irony of this is that boiled down: DW would rather a Christian Heresy (zionism) continue to prosper and haunt our nation, just to shut down a group of people he has a personal grudge against. This even though this heresy of Zionism is really aimed at the strength of the church in favor of a heathen belief and people.

DW expresses glee over a heresy which has subjected our children and nation to constant war / poverty. He takes glee in the undermining of the Church and nation, so that these “Aunti-Zemites” he so detests personally would experience setback.

It’s also interesting that DW in the clip above talks about “bad forms of Kinism.” Does this mean that DW finally recognizes that there is a Kinism that isn’t bad? And if he finally recognizes that would he possibly come out and say so?

Folks, conservatism is dead and ministers like Wilson (and Foster, and Sandlin, and Boot, and White, and etc. etc. etc.) are Pied Pipers either keeping us in the very bad place we currently are or worse yet leading us to an even worse place yet.

Dabney noted this long before Samuel Francis when he wrote of Conservatism in the 2nd half of the 19th century;

“It may be inferred again that the present movement for women’s rights will certainly prevail from the history of its only opponent, Northern conservatism. This [Northern conservatism] is a party which never conserves anything. Its history has been that it demurs to each aggression of the progressive party, and aims to save its credit by a respectable amount of growling, but always acquiesces at last in the innovation. What was the resisted novelty of yesterday is today one of the accepted principles of conservatism; it is now conservative only in affecting to resist the next innovation, which will tomorrow be forced upon its timidity and will be succeeded by some third revolution; to be denounced and then adopted in its turn. American conservatism is merely the shadow that follows Radicalism as it moves forward towards perdition. It remains behind it, but never retards it, and always advances near its leader. This pretended salt hath utterly lost its savor: wherewith shall it be salted? Its impotency is not hard, indeed, to explain. It is worthless because it is the conservatism of expediency only, and not of sturdy principle. It intends to risk nothing serious for the sake of the truth, and has no idea of being guilty of the folly of martyrdom. It always when about to enter a protest very blandly informs the wild beast whose path it essays to stop, that its “bark is worse than its bite,” and that it only means to save its manners by enacting its decent role of resistance: The only practical purpose which it now subserves in American politics is to give enough exercise to Radicalism to keep it “in wind,” and to prevent its becoming pursy and lazy, from having nothing to whip.”

― Robert Lewis Dabney

Biblical Christians need to be done with conservatism and they need to be done with the clergy, like Wilson, who are the embodiment of the Conservative impulse.

1.) Yes the descendants of Africa were brought here against their will as they were sold into bondage by their black African captors to, in many cases, Bagels who owned the shipping that was transporting these black Africans captured and sold as booty of war at at a great profit. It was a terrible thing for those people to endure but in the endurance of it the descendants of those black Africans have inherited a position and well being that could have never been theirs had their ancestors remained in Africa as war booty.

2.) Descendants of Africans were assimilated? They sure didn’t think so in the time of MLK. To listen to many today they don’t want to be assimilated instead preferring to be constantly playing the role of aggrieved victim. Those genuinely assimilated will have no foundation for pleading victimization.

3.) Identity politics came into being precisely because assimilation with its “America as melting pot” metaphor was NEVER true. It was only a matter of time once the project of white replacement got underway that identity politics was seen as the mask it was and is.

It is a mask, having been ripped off is now understood . If one looks at voting patterns, for example, going back decades and decades one can see the reality of identity politics in how minorities have voted over the decades. Identity politics merely became a problem, for people like Doug Wilson, once white people started voting in their interests. Identity politics was fine with the left up until the point when White folks began to realize that they had unique interests vis-a-vis other people groups.

“Until recently, America was a distinct ethnos that came into being as the result of many different ethnoi coming together at a pace that made assimilation possible—it was truly a melting pot.” 

Doug Wilson 
Pope of CREC

1.) What Doug doesn’t mention is that while it can be argued that America was indeed a distinct ethnoi, it was a distinct ethnoi as the European cousins inter-married. In other words, the US became a distinct ethnoi as comprised, in its majority expression, of White Europeans. That this is true is seen in census results from my own lifetime that registered America as being 88% white. This is a significant fact left off by “gate-keeper of Moscow.”

2.) Contra Wilson America was NEVER a melting pot. That was a myth sold to America in the early 19th century. I’m confident that current Reformed chaps seeking to be the Gatekeepers know that the more prevailing metaphor now is “America as salad bowl.” Interestingly enough the idea of America as melting pot was popularized by a early 20th century Russian Bagel immigrant, Israel Zwangli in a play he wrote. It has always been to the Bagel’s advantage to sell this dissimulation so that White Anglo Saxon Protestants don’t have a sense of ownership of their own nation. Those selling the whole “Melting Pot” myth have to know that America was, as recently as my birth, a nation that was 88% white and overwhelmingly Christian.

It is in the interest of Bagels to embrace and promulgate this false metaphor of “melting-pot” because by doing so no ethnic/racial majority is allowed to rise in order to “persecute” the Bagel population. A melting-pot metaphor keeps a people who are 2% of the population in an advantaged place as a “divide and conquer” technique. If there is no majority people group then it is easier for a group who has always refused to assimilate to control the whole nation.

“What these disparate groups were assimilated into was an Anglo Protestant culture that was superior to many other cultures. But any superiority that it had was because it was Christian, not because it was Anglo.”

Doug Wilson
Gate-keeper of Moscow

1.) If these disparate groups were assimilated into a Anglo-Protestant culture that was superior to many other cultures, then we might ask; “What the Hades has happened to that Anglo-Protestant culture these foreign elements were assimilated into?” I mean, if they were really ‘assimilated’ per the Gate-keeper of Moscow shouldn’t we still have that original Anglo-Protestant culture?

For the rest of the Wilson blathering immediately quoted above I quote the response of my friend DD;