Category: Apologetics

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.”

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.

McAtee Contra Dr. W. Robert Godfrey On Egalitarianism

America Christianity has had a long run of strength in our culture…. We were traveling and I found a book in a book store titled “The End of White Christian America,” and it’s not as analytical as I had hoped it would be but it is full of statistics in an interesting way showing how America is changing and the role of Christian values in America is changing dramatically and I thought; ‘How do we react to that? How do we feel about that?’ Well, some American Christians (and of course there ought to be an end to white America. America ought to be a multiracial country where everyone is equal) But how do we feel as Christians that it ought to be the end of a Christian America? And you know I think there are two basic reactions to that. One reaction that we see too often is a angry reaction. ‘I’m mad that we’re losing our prerogatives. I’m mad that we’re losing our influence.’ I’m mad that these people have changed my country.’

Now there is some legitimacy to anger in politics but fundamentally Christians aren’t called to be angry, and I think that we as Christians need to say at this moment, ‘Alright, if we’re going to be weaker then let’s pray to the Lord that that will actually be an occasion for us to be strong and lets act in love.”

Dr. W. Robert Godfrey
Westminster Seminary California
President Emeritus
Ligonier Ministries Teaching fellow
Samson Series, Lecture 10, 11

I don’t know what year this was given but that hardly matters.

1.) Note the almost casual way in which the most offending part is given. It is said as if “well, it is obvious that there ought to be an end to America as a white nation and of course America ought to be multiracial where everyone is equal.” It is said as if multiculturalism and egalitarianism are the most obvious truths in the world. It almost is so obvious that it hardly even needs to be noted.

2.) Look again at the two “ought” statements. By what moral constraint and standard are these ought statements leveraged? Who says; “there ought to be an end to white America? America ought to be a multiracial country where everyone is equal?” If the egalitarianism of Cultural Marxism is the moral standard then we understand where all this “oughtness” is coming from as emanating from Dr. Godfrey. However, where do we find in Scripture the idea that nations ought to be egalitarian?

3.) And what of this idea of “equal” that Dr. Godfrey invokes? He even says everyone should be equal. As children are part of everyone should it be the case that children are equal to parents? In a Biblical worldview are men and women equal? Whence this idea that all peoples, regardless or their race or gender are equal? Yes, we agree that all men are equally responsible to God’s law as in their station and calling. Yes, we agree that all men outside of Christ are equally subject to God’s wrath (though they are not even all equally fallen as the depths of some people’s fallenness is more depraved than others depths of fallenness). Equality is a mathematical term. Two 2 x 4’s are equal. Two quarts are equal. However as people are not mathematical equations two people are never ever equal. This statement of Godfrey’s is horrid and is the product not of Christianity but of Marxism.

4.) Scripture does at times call for anger. Scripture teaches “Be angry, and sin not (Psalm 4:4, Ephesians 4:26). Scripture also counsels repeatedly that we should be slow to anger. However, there comes a time when a lack of anger is not Christ honoring. Christians ought to be angry when God’s glory is diminished or cast away. That our homeland was founded by Christian god-fearing men who had a vision of Christ’s dominion in the new world that has since been cast aside for the sake of tolerating sin and making room for the alien, stranger and foreigner who seized it from citizens who were taught the importance of a ‘anti-christ’ tolerance should make us angry. In light of that reality, for Dr. Godfrey to say “well Christians shouldn’t be angry” is enough to make someone properly angry.

4.) Christians ought to be mad that Christianity is losing (has lost) its prerogatives and influence. Why would any Christian be  neutral or happy  that the prerogatives and influence of other alien anti-Christ religions have flourished above the Christ honoring prerogatives and influence of Christ? If Christians are to have “no other God’s before God,” then should they not be saddened, disappointed and, yes, even angry, that other gods are now before God in the public square?

5.) Note in all this Dr. Godfrey seems to see no correlation between the decline of Christianity in America and the decline of White America.

6.) That last sentence above from Dr. Godfrey is a whole semester of Jesus Juking in just one sentence.

7.) Yes, of course, we are to act in love. Just as I’m sure Samson was acting in love when he pushed out the pillars on the Philistines in his final loving act and just as David was acting in love when he loaded up that slingshot and just as Jesus was acting in love when He called the Pharisees “white washed tombs full of dead men’s bones,” and just as Elijah was acting in love when he partied with the prophets of Baal in the Kishon valley and just as Paul was acting in love when he told the Judaizers that he wished that they would go all the way and emasculate themselves.

8.) Paul’s discovery that “when I am weak, then I am strong,” was not an injunction to search out weakness and embrace it. It was an observation that when visited with weakness by God’s providence we can discover grace that works to make us strong.

9.) All that Dr. Godfrey says above is consistent with the R2K that the Seminary he was President of has pushed for decades now.

The Common Ground Between R2K & Doctrinaire Communism

“The (Russian) Orthodox Church already had martyrs to Communism: but Patriarch Tikhon (1865 – 1925), for all his earlier courage, was not to be among them. In June, the Communists broke him. He signed a statement declaring that his treatment had been justified because of his anti-Soviet attitudes, and that he had not suffered in confinement. He made this formal avowal of surrender: ‘I have completely adopted the Soviet platform, and consider that the Church must be non-political.’

But the blood of Orthodox Archbishop Benjamin and Catholic Msgr. Budkiewicz cried out from the ground against that.”

Warren H. Carroll
The Rise & Fall of Communist Revolutions – p. 164

What is interesting in this quote is that the Russian Communists, after the Bolshevik Revolution in 1917 were insisting that the Churches in Russia must be, by way of doctrinal commitment, be non-political — that is to say they must not be involved in speaking to state policy.

In turn, the interest in that is found in the fact that such a Communist policy is the same policy that the R2K chaps from Escondido (Westminster West) and elsewhere in the Reformed denominational world insist must be the policy of the Reformed church. So, both the Communists and the Radical Two Kingdom “theologians” like David Van Drunen, R. Scott Clark, Michael Horton, J. V. Fesko, D. G. Hart, Chris Gordon, T. David Gordon, Kevin DeYoung, ad infinitum, each agree that the Church must be non-political. (Never mind the consideration that if the church is non-political it is at that point following a extraordinarily political path.)

The Communists tortured Patriarch Tikhon in order to get his mind right on the subject of the “non-political nature of the church” and R2K does all it can to close the door against those who defy their Communist skubala that insists that the Church is necessarily obligated to be “non-political.”