DW ends on a playful note (BLM loves to play).
In a different article, Bret McAtee complains about the Leftist press anointing me as the titular head of the Christian Nationalism movement, and argues that I am going to use my immense powers the same way that William F. Buckley did when he “cleansed” the conservative movement, first of the Birchers, followed by others like Brimelow and Sobran.
BLM writes,
Honestly, one could read this article by DW as a way to cleanse his Christian Nationalist movement of the kinists he finds so problematic. Isn’t DW saying, “Christian Nationalism, yes …. Kinism as part of Christian Nationalism NO?”
In fairness though, I don’t blame DW for that since in my world DW’s kind of civic and pluralistic “Christian” Nationalism likewise would need not apply.
DW writes,
He bases his account of this on an article by Murray Rothbard, and one wonders why McAtee is demonstrating his leftward drift so openly, citing the work of a Jew like that. A little suspicious, no?
BLM responds,
I not only have read plenty of Rothbard, I’ve also read plenty of Neil Postmen, Jaques Derrida, and Bernard Bailyn — Jews all. Does this prove I’m not an anti-Semite? I’ve even been known to read Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John as well as St. Paul. By DW’s reckoning I’ve been suspicious for a very long time now in terms of my leftist drifting.
DW writes,
However I confess myself as not being in charge of anything that other people might want to call themselves. I am only in charge of what I am willing to call myself. And if Christian Nationalism comes to be widely associated with ethnic animosity and/or ethnic vainglory, then to Hell with Christian Nationalism, and I would rather be dead in a ditch than to call myself that. I would drop it like a hot rock. But if Christian Nationalism gets successfully defined by Christians who understand how important it is not to go down that ungodly wormhole, then I am happy to be associated with it.
Bret responds,
I quite agree that I have no desire to be widely associated with a Christian Nationalism that is guilty of ethnic animosity and/or ethnic vainglory. I agree with Doug’s sentiment “to hell with that form of Christian Nationalism.”
But, as they say, “the devil is in the details,” and I’m not confident per our exchange here that DW and I are going to define ethnic animosity and/or ethnic vainglory in the same way. In the “for whatever it is worth” category I want DW to know that I find myself repeatedly pushing back against some of the ethnic animosity and/or ethnic vainglory he is rightly concerned about. I see this in some quarters where, for example, people want to argue that National Socialism was a positive good.
DW ends with,
But time will tell. I have not yet gotten my orders from the CIA.
BLM responds,
Well, we trust that DW will be honest with us when those orders from the CIA come in.
I’ve enjoyed this exchange … except that I wouldn’t be so quick to flee from D W’s charges of “ethnic animosity and/or ethnic vainglory”. Rather, I’d make a case for “proper pride” as I think W. L. Faison does in the following:
“If the Mosaic code, so far as it is adapted to our country, age, and religion, were followed; one half of the miseries of society and the whole of the blunders of politicians would be averted. Under this code, the love of the Hebrew was first to be expended in the bosom of his own family, next upon his own tribe, and finally, upon his nation. Marriages were strictly forbidden with other nations, and to some extent interdicted with other tribes. The Hebrew woman marrying in another tribe forfeited her inheritance. Marriages of that kind were rare. Each tribe was desirous to excel in numbers, as well as in the arts of war and peace. So it became a reproach to be barren.
The whole Mosaic economy fostered and promoted sectional love and sectional pride. It had none of the hypocritical cant of modern philanthropy about “the great heart of humanity” and “knowing no North, no South, no East, no West.” — [see Melville’s Redburn]. On the contrary, it taught most distinctly that the boundaries of each tribe must be recognized, and that the duty and the love of each Hebrew belonged specially to his own tribe.” p. 366.
W.L. Faison, ‘The Land We Love’, Vol. 2
Great quote Ron.
And I didn’t exactly run from DW’s charges noting in my final installment that while DW & I might agree that ethnic animosity and ethnic vainglory are bad we seemingly would not agree what the definition of that is. I said; “The Devil is in the details.”
It’s a great quote though and I may well use this yet in the future.
I’m glad you liked it. (I’m with you on KINISM). You may also like this related quote from the man who chaired the KJV translation:
“Every sinner, as he is a sinner, is to be hated; every man, as he is a man, is to be loved. Let us love men so that we love not their sins; and love them for that which God made them, not that which by sin they made themselves. For degrees, one man is nearer than another. It is certain there are degrees; for to omit our duties towards our parents is worse than to omit the same duties towards a stranger. The order of our love must be thus: to God, to our own souls, to the souls of our brethren before our own bodies, to our own bodies before other men’s, to the bodies of our neighbors.
[Of the bodies of our neighbors there are also degrees to be followed]: first, to them that have need; and of those, first to the household of faith (Gal. 6:10); and of them, first to our countrymen, brethren and companions (Ps. 122:8); and of these, first them that are our friends and acquaintances; and of them, first to them of our own household and kindred (1 Tim. 5:8); and of our kindred, first the wife (Gen. 2:24, 1 Sam. 1:8).
Of the manner of our love: ‘not so much as thyself, but after the same manner.’ Because thou lovest God, (and therefore all things which are God’s), for this cause love thy brother. pp. 172-3. The rule is that the love to myself must be the rule of the love to my neighbor, and so it is not required that I should do any more for my neighbor than I would do for myself.” p. 209.
Lancelot Andrewes, ‘Pattern of Catechistical Doctrine and Other Minor Works’
Yet another great quote.
Clearly you are a reader?
“I go out of my way to affirm all this so DW won’t call me a skinist or accuse me of having ethnic animosity or ethnic vainglory.”
Probably no such luck, no matter what you or any other kinist says. Wilson is a very cleaver, and on this issue he seems to value his cleverness more than truth.
On this hand Wilson is trying to bluff with a pair of threes.
He is in error and more and more are seeing it.
One more point. Wilson calls us “skinists.” The truth is that kin isn’t skin; it’s flesh and blood.
Great observation Roland.