A Response to “As the Fighting Moderates Mount the Lone Bulwark,”

In his article; “As the Fighting Moderates Mount the Lone Bulwark,” Doug Wilson has a gif of the character played by Christopher Plummer in the “Sound of Music” where Plummer’s character rips in half a Nazi flag.

Score one for Captain Von Trapp.

However, the usage of this gif by Doug to adorn his article indicates that Doug really does think that he is standing on his lone bulwark fighting Nazis. In brief, everybody who doesn’t agree with Doug’s views of natural affections, Kin, race, or tribe is a Naziwhowantstokill6millionJews.

But it’s just not so and no matter how hard Doug tries to paint the Samuel Francis and Joseph Sobran battalions in his movement as Nazis it is clear by now that it is not going to work.

Doug’s history is as bad, in places, as his sociology. For example here;

“When Hitler double-crossed the Soviets, invading Russia,”

Historical context requires us to realize that it was a race between the Communists and the Nazis as to who was first going to double cross whom. Recent evidence has been put forth in books like “Icebreaker” that Hitler double-crossed the Communists before the Communists double-crossed him. It was a race to see who would double cross whom first. Read, in that light it hardly seems like double crossing.

Next, in the category of terrible history, Doug offers;

So while Churchill was certainly a great man, we still have to say that, great man or not, history still has a way of unfolding and/or unraveling on you.”
Doug Wilson
As the Fighting Moderates Mount the Lone Bulwark

Blog Mablog

Anybody who suggests that Winston Church was a great man is clueless about WW II history. Was Churchill a great man as a result of his Gallipoli campaign? Was he a great man in conjunction with his work to make sure passenger liners carrying war ordinance were torpedoed by German U-Boats? Was he a great man because of the copious amounts of alcohol he consumed during critical times of decision during war? Was he a great man because of his acquiescence at Teheran and Yalta to the Soviets taking over Eastern Europe? Was he a great man because of the Quebec conference? Was he a great man because he was all in on the Morgenthau plan to murder countless German civilians after the war? Was he a great man because of his demand for the firebombing in German cities or even just the routine bombing of civilian centers? (Churchill was doing this to Germany long before Germany responded in kind against England.) Was Churchill great when he stood on the roof defying the German bombers to bomb him knowing all the time because of intelligence reports that the German Bombers were not going to come near his location? Was Churchill a great man for how he starved out India? Was he a great man for conspiring with FDR to get us into a war we had no business being involved? Was Winston Churchill great because his leadership in both World Wars resulted in the end of the British Empire and the Communist take over of half of Europe?

You see… Doug Wilson is not a wise man. He calls one of the greatest villains of the 20th century a great man. Someone should tell Doug that it is possible to think Hitler a villain while at the same time thinking that Churchill was a villain as well.

So, we see that not only is Doug’s sociology dreadful but his 20th century history is dreadful as well. As a result, he puts the wrong chaps in the dock.

Now, we should say here that Doug’s concern that there may be people who are crypto-Nazis among white Christians in America is understandable but having been around and knowing a good number of Kinists it is not the Kinists who want to “Heil” them some “Hitler.” How does Doug figure that the Filipino Kinists I know, or the Hispanic Kinists I know, or the Black Kinists I know, or the sub-continent Indian Kinists I know are going to look going around going all “sieg-heil all the time?” As I have said countless times it is just ridiculous to suggest that Kinism = Nazism. But that is what Doug does and what Doug continues to do in this most recent piece.

Doug seems to take some exception to Dr. Stephen Wolfe’s recent tweet stating;

“White evangelicals are the lone bulwark standing between us and the disaster of moral insanity.”

He admits that it is a true statement but that whiteness has nothing to do with the observation. He notes that it is equally true that;

“Zionist dispensationalists are the lone bulwark against moral insanity in America.” If we were to offer this up as a demographic observation, it makes the same kind of sense as does the white evangelical version because, in North America, white evangelicals really are overwhelmingly Zionist dispensationalists.

Perhaps, but it is also true that Zionist dispensationalists are overwhelming white people and so Stephen Wolfe’s statement remains true. As a whole we could say that “White evangelicals, many, but not all of whom are Zionist Dispies, are the lone bulwark against moral insanity in America.” However, the one constant between these two groups (White Evangelicals in America and Zionist Dispensationalists in America) is that they tend to be overwhelmingly white.  All Doug has proven here is that some of those white people who are part of the Bulwark against moral insanity in America are eschatologically insane when it comes to thinking that modern Khazars in the Middle East have anything to do with the return of Jesus. However, that point does not negate Stephen Wolfe’s point that white Evangelicals are the lone bulwark against moral insanity in America.

Now, we would reassure Doug here that we are convinced that the reason that White Evangelicals are the lone bulwark against moral insanity in America is primarily because White Evangelicals are Christian. However, those White Christians remain White, as much as that seems to bug Doug.

Now, the question arises; “If White Evangelicals are the lone bulwark against moral insanity in America, where do we find the corps of moral insanity arising in the West against which White Evangelicals have to serve as the lone bulwark?”

However, in answering this question Doug would vigorously protest because a certain bone would get stuck sideways in his throat could he be dispassionate about the answer.

Doug next manages to call many of those who oppose his Churchillian vision of reality of being mangy dogs. In this context the Pope of Moscow writes,

“Now I have been maintaining for a long time that any conservative Christian minister who is not routinely accused of racism and misogyny is a minister who is not doing his job. I have also maintained that if the charges are in any way true, as determined by the scales of the Temple, he is also not doing his job. Got that? Faithful Christians are slandered as racists and misogynists, and secondly, the slander is in fact a slander.”

1.) Yes, but should faithful conservative Christiana (be they ministers or otherwise) be slandered by Doug as being dogs (mangy or otherwise) or as being “racists” or as being “Kinists” with the innuendo being that Kinism = racism? Et Tu Doug?

2.) I’m all for going by the scales of the Temple as long as Doug Wilson isn’t the one operating the scales while the weighing is going on. Got to watch that thumb on the scales routine.

3.) I know many Kinists and I have to tell you I am dancing with rage over the constant hinting by Doug that this group of men I know are racists, Anti-Semites, or misogynists. Now, I suppose there may be Kinist men I don’t know who are secretly racist (whatever that might mean), Anti-Semites, and/or misogynist but if those men exist they are buried pretty deep. I mean, after all, I have been called “The King of the Kinists.” You would think I would know my subjects. (I say, I say, I say, that’s a joke Son.)

To put a fine point on this matter. I don’t know all the men out in Pella, Iowa but I know some of them and I am hear to tell you those men are racists the way that Aunt Jemima syrup is a brand of Kaopectate. It is just ridiculous the way that Pella CREC church — modeling so well as it does the idea of a Christ centered community of faith — should have to put up with the slings, arrows, and denunciations coming from Moscow and the CREC Pope.

In this context Doug writes,

I want to fight for the truth in such a way as to make people accuse me of being a bigot. I also want to fight in such a way as to make it manifestly clear to all the sensible observers that I am not a bigot.

And here we find irony because I would 100% agree with that sentiment and yet Doug tries to cleanse himself of the bigot accusation by pointing his gnarly finger at ethno-nationalists/Kinists and in good Commie fashion denounces them as … “Bigots,” “Racists,” and “Anti-Semites.” I know… I have come under Doug’s examination myself in the past. So, to be clear here, I am accusing Doug of cleansing himself of the accusation of bigot by putting other men in the dock and falsely charging them with being a bigot. In such a way Doug can say to the New York Times, Wall Street Journal neo-con crowd, “See, I’m not a bigot like these filthy bigots.” That kind of behavior can tend to make people resent you.

Doug includes in his irrational diatribe,

“that doesn’t keep the situation in Pella from being a real pastoral mess.”

I know some of the men in that Pella Church. I know them as good men. I also know what it means to be a Pastor and I can guarantee you that when the Pope of the denomination one is attached to says things like the sentence above it makes your job as Pastor a giant 5 alarm migraine headache. I don’t know Rev. Michael Shover of Pella CREC. I have never talked to him. But, I can still sympathize with the headache that Doug has created for him in Doug’s authorial petulance.

Doug then talks about the stupid proposed Memorials that the CREC is fixing to adopt. Personally, I applaud those Memorials because they are going to serve to make the CREC irrelevant in the fight that is ahead for the survival of Christendom in America. Really, what Doug is trying to build now is a soft-multicultural ecclesiastical reality. The CREC, when it comes to multiculturalism, metaphorically speaking, objects to the rock group “Black Sabbath,” but they are perfectly fine with Ozzy Osbourne.

Doug finishes his article with this rhetorical flourish;

The edgy brethren, let us call them, think that they are the real threat to the regime. They believe that they are the lone bulwark. They have seen through all of the lies. They took one of the red pills, and then six of them, and then they emptied the bottle. They believe that years ago the Moscow gang started down the right road with our little putt-putt reformation, but they have come into the brutal truth. They, and they alone, have faced up to the stark realities.

Moscow, with its worship services, and psalms, and feasts, and wedding ceremonies, and conferences, and publishing, and Canon plussing, and small business start-ups, and education work, and so on and furthermore, is simply LARPing. They, by way of contrast, know the truth about the Jews and the start of the Second World War.

1.) Clearly, they have seen through the WW II lies that Doug has embraced. They are more likely to read David Irving or Patrick J. Buchanan while Doug is reading the court historians on the subject.

2.) Praise God there are people left who are emptying the red-pill bottle while swallowing rapidly. It is simply the case that seeing through all the lies and smog of this culture requires a hefty consumption of red-pills. Would that Doug tried swallowing a few more.

3.) Count me as one of those who believes that Moscow started something good but then got sidelined by bad theology (Federal Vision), bad history, bad sociology, and bad ecclesiology (Ecclesiocentrism). I am glad that a corrective to their corrective arrived on the scene. Doug is not the final word on Ecclesia semper reformanda est. Doug refuses himself to face historical stark realities. Shrug … God will raise up someone else who isn’t fearful of these stark realities.

4.) Doug finishes with what, in my opinion, looks to be insecurity. He cites the great might of his Empire and implies… “how dare you suggest that I could possibly be wrong?”

We tip the cap to all that Doug has accomplished and praise God for that work. However, Doug is not the end of the road. There is more road ahead and if Doug does not want to travel it, some of the men of Pella and others like them will travel further down the road.



Author: jetbrane

I am a Pastor of a small Church in Mid-Michigan who delights in my family, my congregation and my calling. I am postmillennial in my eschatology. Paedo-Calvinist Covenantal in my Christianity Reformed in my Soteriology Presuppositional in my apologetics Familialist in my family theology Agrarian in my regional community social order belief Christianity creates culture and so Christendom in my national social order belief Mythic-Poetic / Grammatical Historical in my Hermeneutic Pre-modern, Medieval, & Feudal before Enlightenment, modernity, & postmodern Reconstructionist / Theonomic in my Worldview One part paleo-conservative / one part micro Libertarian in my politics Systematic and Biblical theology need one another but Systematics has pride of place Some of my favorite authors, Augustine, Turretin, Calvin, Tolkien, Chesterton, Nock, Tozer, Dabney, Bavinck, Wodehouse, Rushdoony, Bahnsen, Schaeffer, C. Van Til, H. Van Til, G. H. Clark, C. Dawson, H. Berman, R. Nash, C. G. Singer, R. Kipling, G. North, J. Edwards, S. Foote, F. Hayek, O. Guiness, J. Witte, M. Rothbard, Clyde Wilson, Mencken, Lasch, Postman, Gatto, T. Boston, Thomas Brooks, Terry Brooks, C. Hodge, J. Calhoun, Llyod-Jones, T. Sowell, A. McClaren, M. Muggeridge, C. F. H. Henry, F. Swarz, M. Henry, G. Marten, P. Schaff, T. S. Elliott, K. Van Hoozer, K. Gentry, etc. My passion is to write in such a way that the Lord Christ might be pleased. It is my hope that people will be challenged to reconsider what are considered the givens of the current culture. Your biggest help to me dear reader will be to often remind me that God is Sovereign and that all that is, is because it pleases him.

12 thoughts on “A Response to “As the Fighting Moderates Mount the Lone Bulwark,””

  1. That is an excellent take on Doug though very hard to swallow for some as Doug is, comparatively speaking, a bright light in American Christendom as he does so many things right. But it is that brightness that blinds folks to his very bad position on some things like the ethnic component in a true Christian nationalism. Exampled by his having more in common with an Ethiopian Christian woman that I he has with his male, white, non-Christian neighbor. Always thinking vertically right? I think that is a pretty accurate representation of what he said. Well yeah there is no doubt that we should always be thinking vertically but not ONLY vertically. There are horizontal responsibilities that vertical thinking lays on me—kin being one of them from those within the walls of my own home and then outward and encompassing the whole of my people. Not to mention that the nullification of it borders on Gnosticism. And I could be wrong but I don’t think so, that Doug fears the financial power of the cabal and their ability to destroy anyone whom they consider a real threat so he is not going to tread on the wrong side of the race issue. They do after all, as is seen by anyone who really knows his history, have the ability to tear down entire nations. He is not about to offend them. Better to blast a caricature of those damn Kinists.

  2. Hitler’s terrible, terrible mistake was not breaking his deal with the Soviets but making that deal in the first place, which doomed him to two-front warfare and destruction – he should have tried to make nice with the Poles against the USSR, and not the other way round! He “sold his soul” with the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact – having so long posed as a hardcore anti-Bolshevik, he shook their hands, just to be able to crush Poland.

    One could very well speculate that in 1939, God removed his protecting hand, His “common grace,” from Hitler, and allowed him to destroy himself and Germany with his proud foolishness. The 1938 Munich Treaty had been his high-water mark, he should have never broken THAT deal.


    “Although Hitler did not “abide by its commandments”, Domarus believed that he retained elements of the Catholic thinking of his upbringing even into the initial years of his rule: “As late as 1933, he still described himself publicly as a Catholic. Only the spreading poison of his lust for power and self idolatry finally crowded out the memories of childhood beliefs and in 1937 he jettisoned the last of his personal religious convictions, declaring to comrades, ‘Now I feel as fresh as a colt in the pasture'”.[52]”

    The god of war (call him Wotan or Devil if you please) was by 1939 possessing Hitler and other leading Nazis, leading them into mad carnage they had no chance to win. His heart was hardened, like the Pharaoh’s.

    1. From a military perspective, Hitler’s big mistake was not pushing the defeated British Military into the sea @ Dunkirk. Secondly, he made the mistake of going after civilian targets w/ his bombing campaign instead of sticking to military targets. If he had stuck to military targets he could have rolled into Britain.

      So much for a two front war.

  3. American reactionaries like you often like to whitewash Hitler, making excuses for his mad foolishness, when they come to the shocking realization that “We fought on the wrong side in the WW II!” That is, that the US should have never fought on the same side with the USSR.

    But it was Hitler who made that happen in the first place, by FIRST getting into war with Western allies (by his attack on Poland, which had been preceded by invasion of Czechia, which he had promised to keep his hands off in Munich), and THEN getting into war with the Soviets. The Führer almost handed his own head on a silver platter to his enemies (and Germany’s head at the same time).

    You should try to avoid overly Americo- or Anglocentric view of the WW II. Trust me, we Europeans do not see Hitler as any kind of diplomatic genius. Thus we are not very tempted to make apologias for him, even if we do not share the Liberal-Leftist narrative.

    (Mussolini, too, showed some utterly boneheaded diplomatic skills, by declaring war on England and France, almost without any provocation, in 1940, when he thought that the war was as good as over:


    1. You desperately need to read Churchill’s War by David Irving or failing that Patrick J. Buchanan’s “The Unnecessary War.”

      I do not whitewash AH in the least. I think he was a top flight villain matched only by FDR, Winston Churchill, and Stalin. My policy for WW II would have been armed neutrality, selling weapons to both the Commies and the Nazis, doing the best possible to make sure they exhausted one another.

      One thing is damn sure and that is the truism that the US should have never fought on the side of the Communists.

      In terms of Poland the Brits were giant idiots by giving a blank check to the Poles that they would come to their rescue if Germany made war on Poland. That guarantee allowed the Poles to not take Germany seriously.

      I do not disagree in the slightest that Hitler was overly aggressive and should have been satisfied w/ Munich. But we never would have gotten that far if the French had shown some backbone when he rolled into the Rhineland. France could have resisted and called Hitler’s bluff but they just faded away.

  4. But of course anti-Communism was not the ONLY reason for Hitler’s attack on the USSR. There was also the concept of “Lebensraum,” or in plain English, robbing the Slavic peoples of their lands and turning them into Helots in their (formerly) own countries. THAT is one aspect of of Nazism that even the most dedicated Führer fanboys today do not like to much recall, or they will (in vain) try to deny it ever even existed.

    As Vox Day put it:


    “People forget that Hitler would have gotten away with ethnically cleansing Germany of Jews if he had been content with a Third Reich that consisted of Germany’s pre-1937 borders. He probably could have gotten away with it if he’d stopped with Austria and Czechoslovakia. It was the Nazi Lebensraum policy, not the Endlosung, that doomed the Third Reich.

    So there is a clear lesson here for ultranationalists: If one is content to clear foreign nationals out of one’s own country by pretty much any means from the civilized to the most primitive, the world will accept that, however loudly they denounce and decry the action. But get greedy for neighboring lands and someone, somewhere, will act to prevent it.”

    1. I’ve tried to make clear that I have no more use for Hitler than I do for Stalin. I’ve made it clear, that following former President Hoover’s stated rational, I would have claimed a hard neutrality, while selling enough arms to both sides to try and insure that they would exhaust each other’s resources.

      Hitler’s actions in both Austria and the Sudetenland were softened by the reality that so many Germans lived in those lands coupled with the fact that Germany was regaining lost territory taken from them @ Versailles. Even in Poland the German population living there were being treated horribly by the Poles.

      And let’s face it…. the evidence is out there now that Stalin was going to invade Germany but was beat to the punch by Hitler. If Hitler had not gone for Lebensraum, Stalin was still going to set Europe on fire.

      See the book “Icebreaker.”

  5. Stalin would have committed suicide if he had tried to invade Europe all on his own (and unlike Hitler, Stalin was NOT a reckless man, but very calculating). That kind of event would have forced even men like Churchill to support Hitler! It was his pact with Hitler that first gave the Soviets keys to the door to Central Europe.

    Imagine the Soviets invading Poland – and the Poles calling for Germans AND Western allies for help. That could have happened.

      1. Well, you can believe in omnipotent magic Jews who can make anything happen, or prevent anything they want from happening. But I do not.

        Stalin’s attack towards Europe, WITHOUT Hitler being in war with Western allies, would have been an utter PR disaster for the Soviets and for the Communist cause in general. The Finnish Winter War of 1939, when public opinion in Western democracies widely sided against the USSR, gave some small taste of what it would have been like.

        Likewise, when the Soviets tried to invade Poland in 1920, the Poles became heroes for everyone except the most fanatical Commies:


        Any hypothetical invasion of Stalin towards the heart of Europe would have quickly forced average right-wing conservatives in the West to side with Far Right or Fascist regimes who would fight against such a threat. The Spanish Civil War, too, gave taste of something like that happening.

        It was Hitler’s disastrous “deal with the devil” in 1939 (that in typical Luciferian manner first seemed profitable, but ended with horrendous costs) that set the ball rolling for Communist rule in Eastern Europe. All the revisionist excuses in the world cannot undo that reality. They say that it can take a lifetime to build a reputation, and only moments to lose it. Hitler lost it in 1939 (while Mussolini lost it in 1940 – all his genuine peacetime accomplishments flushed down the drain by criminally careless declaration of war).

      2. “Brüning wrote a letter to Churchill after he had been forced to resign and go into exile in England in August 1937, setting out the names and identities of the people who backed Hitler. And after the war, Churchill requested Brüning for permission to publish this letter in his great world history, The six-volume world history. And Brüning said no. In his letter, Brüning wrote, ‘I didn’t, and do not even today for understandable reasons, wish to reveal from October 1928, the two largest regular contributors to the Nazi Party were the general managers of two of the largest Berlin banks, both of Jewish faith and one of them the leader of Zionism in Germany.”

        Now there is a letter from Dr. Heinrich Brüning to Churchill in 1949, explaining why he wouldn’t give permission to Churchill to publish the August 1937 letter. It was an extraordinary story, out of Churchill’s memoirs. Even Churchill wanted to reveal that fact. You begin to sense the difficulties that we have in printing the truth today. Churchill, of course, knew all about lies. He was an expert in lying himself. He put a gloss on it. He would say to his friends, “The truth is such a fragile flower. The truth is so precious, it must be given a bodyguard of lies.” This is the way Churchill put it.”……

        David Irving

        “Irving went on to describe several sources of secret financial support enjoyed by Churchill. In addition to money supplied by the Czech government, Churchill was financed during the “wilderness years” between 1930 and 1939 by a slush fund emanating from a secret pressure group known as the Focus.

        Irving on the Focus:

        The Focus was financed by a slush fund set up by some of London’s wealthiest businessmen — principally, businessmen organized by the Board of Jewish Deputies in England, whose chairman was a man called Sir Bernard Waley Cohen. Sir Bernard Waley Cohen held a private dinner party at his apartment on July 29, 1936. This is in Waley Cohen’s memoirs … The 29th of July, 1936, Waley Cohen set up a slush fund of 50,000 pounds for The Focus, the Churchill pressure group. Now, 50,000 pounds in 1936, multiply that by ten, at least, to get today’s figures. By another three or four to multiply that into Canadian dollars. So, 40 times 50,000 pounds — about $2 million in Canadian terms — was given by Bernard Waley Cohen to this secret pressure group of Churchill in July 1936. The purpose was — the tune that Churchill had to play was — fight Germany. Start warning the world about Germany, about Nazi Germany. Churchill, of course, one of our most brilliant orators, a magnificent writer, did precisely that.

        For two years, The Focus continued to militate, in fact, right through until 1939. And I managed to find the secret files of The Focus, I know the names of all the members. I know all their secrets. I know how much money they were getting, not just from The Focus, but from other governments. I use the word “other governments” advisedly because one of my sources of information for my Churchill biography is, in fact, the Chaim Weizmann Papers in the State of Israel. Israel has made available to me all Churchill’s secret correspondence with Chain Weizmann, all his secret conferences. It is an astonishing thing, but I, despite my reputation, in a kind of negative sense with these people, am given access to files like that, just the same as the Russian Government has given me complete access to all of the Soviet records of Churchill’s dealings with Ivan Maisky, Joseph Stalin, Molotov and the rest of them. I am the only historian who has been given access to these Russian records. It is a kind of horse trading method that I use when I want access to these files, because it is in these foreign archives we find the truth about Winston Churchill.”….

        David Irving, speech


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *