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.

Doug Wilson Insisting He Is A “Conservative” – His Audience Tries Not To Laugh

“It really is possible to be a hard line conservative of the old school without getting sucked down a reactionary wormhole. It is possible to hold to the historic Reformed view of Romans 11 on the Jews without being in any way beholden to the liberal post-war consensus. It is possible to be an unfazed and unapologetic Burkean conservative—when some are maintaining you are not conservative at all unless you are clamoring for a Protestant Robespierre.

Not only is it possible, it is far and away the straighter path. I commend it to you, and invite folks to join us.”

Pope Dougie — He of Moscow fame
Blog Mablog – 11 August, 2025

Doug likes to think of himself as a hardline conservative. Remember, this is the man who himself testified he was not interested in being Rushdoony 2.0 but was trying to achieve being Rushdoony 0.5. Only in a world of effeminate smurfs can Dougie be considered “hardline conservative.” This is the problem with the nomenclature. As a culture we have swung so hard to the Revolutionary Left that a soft revolutionary like Wilson can think of himself as “a Hardline conservative.” I imagine that is the way the Girondins thought of themselves during the French Revolution. I supposed compared to Robespierre, the montagnard Jacques Pierre Brissot was a hard line conservative.

Dougie thinks his view of Romans 11 is standard Reformed orthodoxy but when you add his statements about the glories of his family’s relation to the Bagel bloodline combined with his “Covenant with Hagar” nonsense his is a tenuous claim. Pope Doug claiming he is in line with standard Romans 11 interpretation is like saying that lab created meat is in line with a standard 16 oz. porterhouse steak. It demands the response … “Where’s the beef?”

Pope Dougie’s next claim is that he is not beholden in any way to the liberal post-war consensus. Yet, the man has written in support of liberal post-war consensus projects like interracial marriage, the good of processed food – labeling those who resist processed food as having “food scruples’ – and coming out in favor of vaccines. The push for each and all of these are part of the post war liberal consensus that Dougie insists that he has successfully avoided. Me thinketh the lady doth protest too much.

As to Pope Doug’s claim to be a follower of Edmund Burke, Burke wrote;

“The blood of man should never be shed but to redeem the blood of man. It is well shed for our family, for our friends, for our God, for our country, for our kind. The rest is vanity; the rest is crime.”

Yet, Doug has repeatedly abominated this kind of overt Burkean Kinist language. Indeed, Doug hates Kinists. You cannot say you hate kinists while insisting at the same time you love Burke.

Doug Wilson has NOTHING to offer in the way of providing an answer to our descending Constitutional Republic. All Doug offers up is warmed over post war liberal consensus dressed up in Doug’s clever wordsmithing evening clothes.

It is past time to realize that there is no strength to remedy our current malady in the cures that Pope Doug offers. Doug calls his opponents “reactionary.” It’s the same thing Revolutionaries have always called their opponents. What the opponents of Revolutionary movements have always called their supporters is “Liberals.” Doug is a Liberal.

Or if you prefer … soft progressive.

Calvinism … Then & Now

“Calvinism denied that the Kingdom of God is to be equated with the church. Instead, wherever God reigns, there is the Kingdom—and God should reign everywhere. Hence, man can serve God everywhere, and the Kingdom of God includes every area of life, and every institution which obeys his commandments. Thus, church, civil government, school, agriculture, art, business, every realm under God’s law is an area of Kingdom activity.”

“All who are content with a humanistic law system and do not strive to replace it with Biblical law are guilty of idolatry. They have forsaken the covenant of their God, and they are asking us to serve other gods. They must be called out of their idolatry into the service of the living God.”

~R.J. Rushdoony

1.) Militant Amillennialism, (R2K) however insists that the Kingdom of God is an exact synonym with the Church. As such, no Institutional realities outside the Church can be part of the Kingdom of God according to Militant Amillennialism. Further, any Reformed Christian who disagrees with them on this are not to be tolerated. Keep in mind that when consistent this means that Militant Amillennialism does not allow for Christian being used in an adjectival sense. Because nothing can be part of the Kingdom of God except the Church there is no such thing as Christian Magistrates, Christian family, Christian education, Christian law, Christian Nations or even Christendom. According to Militant Amillennialism all of this reflects category mistakes in thinking.

2.) As such, per the quote above, it is indeed the case that all Militant Amillennialism (as well as any other expression of “Christianity” that agree with them in this matter) is indeed guilty of Idolatry and as they are guilty of idolatry no Biblical Christian should be found in a Church where the Church itself promotes this or where this idea is promoted by the clergy of the Church. Idolatry is, after all, heresy.

3.) Note that where it is believed that the Church alone is an exact synonym for “The Kingdom of God,” there you are going to find an entitlement mentality. If, as a clergy member, you alone are a servant of “the Kingdom of God,” then you alone are special the way nobody else in any other calling is special. You alone, as a servant of the Kingdom of God, are thus separated and exalted from the rest of the poor schlubs who labor in the comparatively insignificant “common realm.” As such, you dare not correct the “Kingdom of God” clergy about anything they speak on since they have a relationship to God that is unique to the back of the bus crew.

This explains why you find such arrogance among the R2K types. In their theology they’re just better than the rest of us. Now, that idea is likely often left unstated and the R2K clergy may not even be epistemologically self-conscious about their hoity toity ways, but it only takes a little amount of time interacting with them before you realize that these people believe they are riding in the front of the bus and all the folks riding in the back of the bus should just “hush.”

Converting By The Sword?

“You cannot FORCE someone to be a Christian. If you think you can force a nation to be a Christian Nation Then you are far more like Islam than Christianity.”

Mr. Blake Allen
X Post

I pause to deal with this because this kind of thing gets said repeatedly. Mr. Allen is just a mouthpiece here for an idea that is widely accepted.

However, I challenge the verity of this denial. I do think you can force a people/nation to be Christian. Of course it all depends on what one means by “be a Christian.” One certainly can force a people or nation to be Christian in the sense of forcing upon them Christian standards, law, and morals. Just as Communism was forced upon Europe in the 20th Century so Christianity could be forced upon people today. Another example is how Islam was forced on Christian peoples in the 8th century forward as it converted by the sword as it swept across formerly Christian lands. Eventually, most of those people as individuals gave up their Christianity in order to conform to the “Islam at the point of the sword” reality. Another example is how the Transcendentalist Yankees during the War of Northern Aggression forced their damnable religion on the South successfully during the era or Reconstruction and beyond. Examples abound of religion being successfully forced upon peoples.

Thus there is no reason to think that Christianity, in its objective sense, could not be forced on a people. Charlemagne accomplished this with pagan tribes in his time. Oliver Cromwell did it for a season in England.

Now, if one means by the above quote that one can’t force people into a living vital union with Christ… well, that is certainly true. However, it often is the case that the living vital union with Christ will follow a forced subjection of a people — even if that requires a couple generations. With the forced subjection to Christianity the ground is cleared of pagan religion resistance against Christianity being given a hearing by the former peoples, who, as a people, condemned Christ and Christianity.

So, it is true that one cannot force individuals to have vital and living union with Christ but it is decidedly not true that Christianity cannot be forced upon a people / nation by means of conquest.

The Religious Interrelationship Between Church, State, & Family In Every Social Order / Culture

“The magistrate promotes true religion even when the church is ‘silent.'”

Dr. Stephen Wolfe

This should be true, however if the Church remains silent for very long eventually the magistrate will not promote true religion. Equally, if magistrates do not promote true religion over a sustained period of time eventually neither will the Church.

The Church and State (and family) are three distinct but interdependent co-ordinate agencies and are the Jurisdictional authority centers in any given culture / social order. (Think three legged stool.) If any of these three institutions goes belly up and if the other two will not course correct for the third one that has gone bad, then the consequence will be that eventually all will go bad.

No culture /social order can last long that is divided against itself. Jesus Himself said, “A house divided against itself cannot stand.” As such a culture /social order, except in times of decided turmoil, will always be uniformly religious in their civil social life, their family life, and their church life. Apart from this reality the culture / social order will be in friction and turmoil.

Take these united States right now. Right now we are, speaking in general and not universal terms, a humanist people and that humanism is present in all of our civil Institutions, including and especially the Christian church. (Remember, exceptions exist.) Biblical Christian folks will not rise very high in our current Institutions because our current Institutions are agreed that Biblical Christianity cannot be allowed to rise to challenges the current Institutional non-Christian realities. If Biblical Christians do manage to climb somewhat in our current humanist Institutions they will reach a point where they will be silenced, or they will silence themselves realizing how dangerous it would be to speak out as a Biblical Christian.

I had this last point above brought out to me recently when attending an event with a large number of Christian clergy present. One of those clergy members who belonged to a Reformed “conservative” denominational structure pulled me aside and said quite encouragingly, “Don’t be discouraged. You’re not alone. There are many people out here who agree with you. You’re merely saying the things out loud that the rest of us are saying quietly.” Well, why are these chaps in the position of only being able to say what I say, “out loud” quietly? It is clearly because they know if they say what I say out loud they are going to be descended upon and be silenced by their “Reformed” “Conservative” denomination. So, they silently, from a distance cheer me on but dare not cheer too loudly or join in the contest too directly knowing the penalty that will be paid if they speak their mind without horns or teeth. Let me be clear here. As I said above, I found the chap who pulled me aside to be encouraging. I understand perfectly why he and many like him can only speak “quietly” what I am speaking loudly. I understand that people (clergy) have wives and children who are dependent upon them. I understand that people (clergy) may well decide that the cost is too high and it is better to wait a more opportune time to speak more loudly. I wish they would speak out with me but I understand why they don’t believe they can.

Cultures / Social Orders rise and fall together religiously. No culture / social order will last long divided against itself.

Addendum

By the way, this explains the whole R2K phenomenon. R2K realizes the above is true and so, seeking to operate in (and also perpetuate) the current humanist culture / social order it silences the voice of Christianity in the pulpit on matters that the prevailing humanist religion is insistent about. In such a way “Reformed” and “Conservative” Christianity can retain its form without having to stand for Christ. It can tell itself that it really is “Christian,” when in point of fact it is merely emptying historic Reformed and conservative Christianity of its content as the Dangeld payment given up in order to be allowed to function in a humanist culture.

A Brief Description of The Holodomor & The Resolve To “Never Again”

“Here I saw people dying in solitude by slow degrees, dying hideously, without the excuse of sacrifice for a cause. They had been trapped and left to starve, each in his home, by a political decision made in a far-off capital around conference and banquet tables. There was not even the consolation of inevitability to relieve the horror.

The most terrifying sights were the little children with skeleton limbs dangling from their balloon-like abdomens. Starvation had wiped every trace of youth from their faces, turning them into tortured gargoyles; only in their eyes still lingered the reminder of childhood. Everywhere we found men and women lying prone, their faces and bellies bloated, their eyes utterly expressionless.”

Victor Kravchenko

“I Chose Freedom” – p. 118

Communist Party Activist

Assigned to the Ukraine

Later repudiated Communism

Warren H. Carroll goes on to write;

“Those not quite so nearly dead, following the most elemental human instinct in such a situation, tried desperately to flee, to go from a place where there was no food at all to a place where there might be some. The full might of the Soviet state was massed to stop them. Travel by farmers was prohibited without special individual permission, rarely given. Railway men were instructed to keep the starving fugitives off trains. Nevertheless, they gathered around almost every railway station, seeking someone who give them a crust of bread, or to get on a train unobserved. Many died along the tracks, and were buried in ditches nearby. Others walked towards the cities, avoiding roadblocks by crawling through swamps and staggering through forests. The few who reached the cities would stand in quarter-mile lines before bread stores, often holding the belt of the man in front of them to stay erect. Old men and children would crawl on their hand and knees on the city streets, begging. There were so many of them that most people’s charity was numbed; and even in the cities of Ukraine the people had little more than enough food to survive. In Kharkov on May 27, police arrested several thousand starving peasants who had joined city bread lines, took them in wagons to a large pit, and literally dumped them in, where most of them, not strong enough to get up and get out of the pit, died in it. At Novovoznesenske in Mikolaiv province, starving peasants tried to get into a government grain dump where grain was rotting; the OPGU (Cheka) guards opened fire on them with machine-guns. At Sahaydak in Poltava province in May, starving peasants succeeded in storming a grain warehouse; many of them were too weak to carry the grain home, and most of them were arrested the next day and shot or sent to labor camps (where it is most unlikely they labored very long.”

Warren H. Carroll

The Rise and Fall of Communist Revolutions – p. 226-227

Describing the Holodomor

All of this has always been consistent with the rise of Communist Revolution. Whether you read about it starting in France in 1787 or if you read about it in Bolshevik Russia from 1917 to its fall, or if you read about it in Bella Kuhn’s brief Hungary stint, or if you read about it’s flare up in the Spanish Revolution, of if you read about it in the Paris Commune of 1871 or if you read about it in Mao’s China with its Cultural Revolution and its Great Leap Forward, of if you read about it in Castro’s Cuba, or if you read about it Ho Chi Minh’s Vietnam, of if you read about it in Pol Pot’s Khmer Rouge in Cambodia, what you always, without fail read, is long chronicles of the dead and dying, and the tortured and the mindlessly inflicted suffering. You read of the brutality of the Marxists against not just their enemies, but against civilian non-combatant populations. What you read is one long description of Hell on earth. Just read what the Soviet Communist troops did to the innocent and women as they traveled across Europe to destroy Germany. Read about the suffering in the Gulag-Archipelago. Read about the treatment of those forcefully repatriated by the Allies back to Russia with the close of World War II. Many of those repatriated had not lived in the USSR since 1917 (Operation Keelhaul). Read about how the Red Army in its warfare against the White Army during the Russian Civil War treated the civilian populations that sheltered White Armies once the White Armies had to evacuate. It’s all there to be found and I’ve read a good deal of it. It is absolutely Satanic.

So, because I know all this I am rabid against any scent of Communist doctrine (Cultural Marxism) emanating from any orifice of any talking ass clergy. These “men” have no idea where the arc of their “theology” is going to end. All this egalitarian skubala, all this shaming of the white race alone, all this watering down of patriarchy, and all this apologizing for muscular Christianity is all going to end, if we don’t put a cork in it, to the very things described above.

It is because some of us have the ability to connect the dots from stupid Cultural Marxist things being said today to struggle sessions, cancel culture, and eventually Gulags that we are so sharp when engaging with the legion of useful idiots that fill professional positions in numerous different fields today.