Category: Marxism/Cultural Marxism

No Quarter November meets Black Flag November; Contra Doug Wilson

I am going to fisk here a recent article by the maven of Moscow at his Blog & Meh-blog site. Allow me to first give some introductory comments.

In his column Doug finds the ability to ignore that the Christian White man is fighting being replaced in every place he dwells, yet despite that Doug writes column after column warning about Christian white people being guilty of racial vainglory.

I hope what I write here in response to Doug will provide Doug a little perspective.

For Doug, Christian white people wanting to survive and maintain their own place with love for their own people is racial vainglory.

In the end if Doug has so much more in common with Nigerian Anglican women then his white pagan neighbor let him move his whole CREC enterprise to Nigeria. I know they could use the help. Does Doug really think he is being a Christian witness to his white pagan neighbor by a back-door support of an enterprise that insures that his white pagan neighbor will have neither any place, or people to call his own, or any Christian witness to call him to Christ?

Doug exclaims that Kinists would build social orders where “one drop” legislation would be on the books and where everyone everywhere is examining one another’s woodpiles. What if instead, Kinists merely desired to see the nations of the West return to a time where the demographics favored their people and their faith? Come on Doug … you don’t really believe that the Kinists of the West are looking to measure the circumference of lips or cranium sizes or eye slant before we allow anyone to live in our social order do you?

You’re becoming disingenuous in the crafting of your arguments Doug. Does this mean your getting desperate?

Doug, in this article, seems to think that all because more than a few White people have fallen for cultural Marxism and WOKE that therefore proves that Kinism is not true. The argument seems to be; “White people are not special as seen by the numbers of them that have embraced WOKIE World.”

Kinists are happy to agree that there are all kinds of treasonous bastards and traitors in our midst. We spend most of our time fighting treasonous white people. People like, (hint — Guys who live in Moscow, Idaho who run their own Denominations).

Now for the fisking;

Doug Writes,

“When you get the point where you are agreeing with those who argue that the Nazis had their good points, then you either have cotton candy for brains, or a Mason jar full of sump pump water for a heart, or, given the times we live in, quite possibly both.”

Bret responds,

Ummm…. Er…. I do think the Nazis had their good point inasmuch as they killed Bolsheviks and presumably loved their Mothers.

I guess I’ll just have to live with the Bolshevik Pope of Moscow thinking that I have cotton candy for brains and a Mason jar full of sump pump water for a heart.

Oh the agony of Doug not having a high opinion of me.

Doug Wilson writes,

“And so, to all those in the ranks of the kinists who really were motivated by nothing more than your God-given natural affection . . . you are being snookered. The only thing you are demonstrating is how gullible a certain brand of white people can be. Some are trying to make you think that you are the radicals, the shock troops, the elite fighting units, a red-pilled brigade of Gurkhas. But I can assure you that the progressives would a thousand times more prefer to be fighting folks like you than fighting regular old conservative Christians, the kind whose grandfathers knew how to kick fascistobutt. You dabbling with demented reactionary memes is making life easy for them. So get out. Walk away. Repent. You think the need of the hour is for everybody to grow a spine, like you think you did, when what you really needed to do was to grow a brain.”

Bret responds,

Psst … don’t tell Doug but our Grandfathers were wrong for kicking fascistobutt. They should have let the fascistobutts and the bolshevikobutts kick each other’s obutts.

And so as to set the record straight Doug, I am sorry to tell you but our grandfathers agreed with us. Please tell me that you don’t believe that they fought to disenfranchise their white descendants during WW II. If they were here, they’d be manning the Kinist shield-wall beside us, and against you. Have you forgotten it is our Fathers who are quoted ad-nauseum in agreement with us in Achord and Dow’s book on this subject?

Given that you misunderstand that Doug you might want to consider growing a brain.

Doug writes,

“The third string are those who take the natural affection for their own people—that no sensible man ever doubted was a good thing—hook it up to a bicycle pump, and inflate it to cringe levels. You know, bracing for the pop. They talk much about love and soil and affection and heritage, but their chief characteristic is a crackling envy aimed at anybody who is smarter, wealthier, has a better looking wife, is more influential, or is better connected than they are. And after just a couple of days marinating in that attitude, they start talking ominously about the Jews.”
Bret reponds,

1.) Doug is calling Kinists the “third string.” A question here Doug … “If Kinists are the third string why are you finding it such a hard time, despite column after column, in snuffing them out?” If you can’t easily defeat the third stringers Doug what are you going to do when the varsity shows up?

2.) It only looks like we are inflating it to cringe levels to those who have spent their first 69 years living as cucks being forced to forget their heritage, or worse yet having to be ashamed of it with the rise of WOKE.

3.) Well, Doug certainly is smarter than me and definitely is more wealthy than me. Doug is well beyond me in being influential and in being better connected. It’s not possible for him or anyone to have a better looking wife, so I suppose that alone explains why I am not at all envious of Doug. Doug tends to think that anyone who would dare disagree with him must be envious of him.

Really … it just couldn’t be the case that anyone might be based not because they are full of envy and/or racial vainglory but rather people are based because their disagreement w/ Doug proves simpliciter that they are full of raging envy.

4.) Doug … Babe … Dude … they’ve been talking ominously about the Jews since November 9, 694, (and before) when the Seventeenth Council of Toledo had a few non-envious words to say about the Jews.

Tell me again Doug … how many Christian nations have the Jews been thrown out of? Were they thrown out every time simply because the Christian nations were envious?

Doug writes,

“And so, to all those in the ranks of the kinists who really were motivated by nothing more than your God-given natural affection . . . you are being snookered. The only thing you are demonstrating is how gullible a certain brand of white people can be.”

Bret responds,

Doug will not tolerate anyone snookering anybody unless it is Doug who is doing the snookering.

Keep in mind that Doug’s love affair with Pale Ale Federal Vision makes him the King of gullible.

Doug writes,

Doug Wilson writes,

“When I think that my skin tone largely matches that of Neil Armstrong and Ted Bundy, I am in equal measure both proud and ashamed. I just don’t know which way to look.”

Bret responds,

More disingenuousness from Doug.

Does he really think Western Civilization could have been built if Ted Bundys were just as prevalent vis-a-vis Neil Armstrongs?

Damn though, the man is clever and slippery at the same time. One has to be at the top of their game to see through all the poop that Wilson throws against the wall.

Next Doug complains about people passing around bootleg copies of Luther’s famous book on the Jews. I wonder if Wilson could tell us just exactly where Luther got it wrong?

Doug writes,

“In short, through excessive worry about any reasonable Christians ever arguing for anything distinctively Christian in the civic realm, because it reminds them of things said in Elijah One Tooth’s newsletter, such policing Christians fussing about tone and trajectory create a situation that results in the only real alternative to the current secular madness being composed entirely of cranks.”

Bret responds,

This paragraph proves that Doug’s desire is to man the right side of the Left. He tees this up by saying he is building a community that is outside of “progressive-ville” while avoiding the swamps where the “Elijah One tooth” Kinists live. Doug is unwilling to live as far left as the progressives live but he’ll be damned if he gets near the Kinists. Doug desires to live in “The Right.side.of.the.left-burgh.” It is merely coincidence that Doug gets better reviews from the “Progressive-ville Times” than he does from the “Elijah One Tooth” Tribune.

Doug writes,

“The result of all this is that cowed and kennel-fed Christians labor to ensure that there will never be a serious biblical challenge mounted against the rogues, mountebanks, and miscreants who make up the current city council of Acceptable Discourse. “If you move in that direction, people will think that ‘Christian nationalism’ is simply code for white supremacist. Simply shouldn’t be done. Dog whistle for raaaaaaacism. Far too risky.”

 

“Who might think that?” I wonder. “And do I have any respect for their opinions on any other matter? I mean, at all? Why should I care about the opinion of a group that has royally discredited itself in pretty much every way?” In short, I would invite all my readers to consider the fact that this is my “not caring” face.”
Bret responds,

Here we see it proven that Wilson is trying to create a position that is not possible to create. Wilson is trying to find a Nationalism that is contrary to both WOKE and Kinist. Wilson thinks that he can create a mediating position that is neither WOKE nor Kinist while at the same time thinking he can attack both positions from his mythical town — Unicorn-ville. Wilson fails to realize that it is the Kinists who have found the mediating position between the Bolshevik WOKies and the dwelling place of the Christless Goose-Steppers.

And the sad thing is that Wilson is going to attract people to what amounts to a CREC Hoover-ville.

Ohh… and for the record Doug … I thought that was your “RBF.”

Doug writes,

“In short, through excessive worry about any reasonable Christians ever arguing for anything distinctively Christian in the civic realm, because it reminds them of things said in Elijah One Tooth’s newsletter, such policing Christians fussing about tone and trajectory create a situation that results in the only real alternative to the current secular madness being composed entirely of cranks.”

Bret responds,

Hey, Doug, you mean like all those cranks quoted in Thomas Achord and Darrell Dow 650 page book on this subject? You know men like Vos, the Hodges, Kuyper, McCartney, John Edwards Rice, Dagg, Dabney, Thornwell, etc. etc. etc.

It’s gotta be a burden Doug to have to denounce all these cranks.

Oh and Doug, I’d love for you to give us a book review on Dow & Achord.

Wilson ends his screed by demonstrating that the core of the man is pure pragmatism. He argues that it doesn’t matter how conclusions are arrived at so long they are the conclusions we desire. If it is acceptable to hold hands with Thomists and Natural Law theorists since they are coming to the same conclusion that Wilson desires then holding hands shall be done.

So, Wilson as a pragmatist will hold hands with the Thomists with what they both agree on but Wilson’s pragmatism only goes so far and as a matter of principle he will not have anything to do with the “Elijah One-Tooths” in the Kinist camp who desires the same thing he desires and that is the rescue of Western Civilization.

What is your standard for Pragmatism Pope Doug?

There is no better way to end this than by quoting Stephen Wolfe from his “The Case For Christian Nationalism,” since what Wolfe identifies is exactly what we are getting from the most Rev. Doug Wilson;

“But when evangelicals write against “racists” or “xenophobes” they go in with all guns blazing, lacking any sense of empathy, understanding, or even rational consideration of arguments. In every case, the manner they go about addressing some topic is determined by ruling class sentiment towards that topic. This is true even when we address fellow Christians. Thus, “good faith” discussions between Christians about same-sex attraction look very different than the unequivocal denunciation of anything with a semblance of “Kinism.” Evangelicals are rhetorically enslaved to the sentiments of coastal elites, even when they are not being addressed. These elites are the Big Brother always watching and judging in the shadows”.

“The More in Common” Argument Coming From the Evangelical Left

Back in August it all started with the Pope of Moscow;

“I have more in common with a Nigerian Anglican Woman than with my conservative white pagan neighbor” 

Doug Wilson 
Blog & MehBlog

Yesterday on Twitter Andy Sandlin took it up;

“The white American Christian billionaire male has more in common with the poorest Christian sub-Saharan female than he does any of his unconverted countrymen.”

Andrew Sandlin
Twitter

And R. C. Sproul Jr, the Doyen of “being famous for being famous” agrees;

“Hard to believe anyone could question this. I guess those who do have this in common with the woke- believing demographic identity is greater than identity in Christ. Stay strong brother. “

R. C. Sproul Jr.
Responding to Doc Sandlin
Twitter

Clearly we are seeing a Gnostic theme gaining steam here. As such let’s examine this for a moment.

In our examination we will go with the humorous sarcastic lampooning side first. This from my friend Thomas Achord;

“Christianity trumps any marriage. The Christian husband has more in common with his neighbor’s Christian wife than he does with his own unconverted wife. Christian men and women should transcend their individual marriages and embrace the universal marriage ideal.”

Similarly we could add;

“Christianity trumps any parental arrangement. The Christian child has more in common with the Christian parents next door than he does with his own unconverted parents. Christian children should transcend their individual parentage arrangements and embrace the universal Christian parenting ideal, since, after all, they have more in common.”

Pressing on we could note how these statements by Wilson, Sandlin and Sproul 2.0 lack precision. Certainly we can all agree that as it pertains to eternal verities we have more in common with a Biblical Christian version of Richard Nikolaus Eijiro, Count of Coudenhove-Kalergi than I have with my cousins who are outside of Christ. However, when it comes to every day matters like supporting a Burkean like social order, or longing for the good old days of Strom Thurmond’s “Dixiecrats,” or the preference for a good old country Fish Fry, or going Coon hunting or setting a trotline or attending a lecture on Great Southern Generals I suspect that I have more in common with the unbelieving good old boys of South Carolina who lived in the community I once Pastored then I do with Wilson, Sandlin, Sproul 2.0 and their ilk.

Think about it. If I were to draw a 90 mile radius with my congregation in the center I would have within that radius many Reformed Churches. I can guarantee you that except for abstract statements that comprise Biblical, Historical, and Systematic theology I would have much more in common with at least some of those Christ hating in that radius than I would many of those in “Reformed Churches.” Truth be told, I don’t find too much in common with “Reformed” Christians anymore as Iron Ink constantly testifies to.

Also down this line in order for me to talk about all that I have in common with any other Christian we better be defining what we mean by Christian. For example, the presumption of charity requires that I believe that Wilson, Sandlin, and Sproul 2.0 are all Christian but I clearly have a hard time finding common ground with these people. I mean, we would agree on any number of abstract theological statements but we are seeing that when it comes to the concrete — not so much. Or we could take the R2K “Reformed” church in Lansing Michigan. The presumption of charity requires I count the Pastor and staff there Christian but I guarantee you that I have even less in common with those people than I do Wilson, Sandlin, and Sproul 2.0. In point of fact, I think those people with their R2K are treasonous baseborn. But if I can make it into the gates of heaven by God’s grace alone so can they and so I count them Christians that I don’t have spit in common with. Similarly, we could talk about liberal Christian ministers who I used to gather with for confabs. Not much in common with those people either.

All this to say that to go around talking the way Wilson, Sandlin, and Sproul 2.0 talk demonstrates a lack of precision that is embarrassing for a minister and frankly, like it or not, in this environment it does come across as Gnostic and Cultural Marxist all at the same time.

To argue this way, is not to proclaim, contra Sproul 2.0, that I am claiming some common ground with the WOKE crowd over common ground with Wilson, Sandlin, and Sproul 2.0. The ironic fact of the matter is that it is Wilson, Sandlin and Sproul 2.0 who are sharing the common ground with the WOKE crowd. Both the WOKE crowd and the Christianity of Wilson, Sandlin, and Sproul 2.0 are screaming at people that nature either doesn’t exist or isn’t important. WOKE teaches that there is no such thing as nature. Wilson, Sandlin, Sproul 2.0 and their legion ilk are saying instead that grace destroys nature. They are in essence saying that once Christians are converted then who they were prior to being Christians, as considered according to who they were as God created them, is extinguished.

Maleness or Femaleness — In Christ gone.
Italian or Irish — In Christ gone.
Age — In Christ gone.
White, Yellow, Brown — In Christ Gone.

All of this passing as Christianity is not a great deal different from what we did in High School at a party when we emptied every kind of alcohol we could find into one container in order to chug it down.

As I recall, we called that drink, “A suicide.”

The Left’s Invoking of Morality & Examining the Left’s Distinguishing of Patriotism & Nationalism

In the last 24 hours I have seen people on the Left make arguments built upon an appeal to “moral values.” I always enjoy the Left invoking the “moral values” argument because they never tell us where they are getting their moral values from. They invoke moral values and at the same time do everything they can to undermine traditional Christian Western moral values. Were I a cynical person I’d believe that they are cynically invoking a morality that they don’t themselves believe but know that hoi polloi believe and on the basis they expect the hoi polloi to get their minds right.

What is interesting in the two examples I am using for this article is that “moral values” are being invoked to support immorality. Our first examples comes from the French President (Macron) who married someone old enough to be his mother. Bridgette Macron had children her future husband’s own age. Be leery of the moral values of any world leader who marries someone old enough to be his mum.

Anyway, here is the French President’s quote;

“Patriotism is the exact opposite of nationalism…nationalism is the betrayal of patriotism. By saying we put ourselves first and the others don’t matter, we erase what a nation holds dearest, what gives it life, what makes it great, and what is essential: its moral values.”

Wouldn’t it be helpful here to know where Macron is getting the idea of moral values from? Was is the standard for Macron wherein he derives his moral values? Macron is a strong supporter of Abortion. Macron is a strong supporter of euthanasia. Where do these moral values come from upon which Macron makes such broad sweeping statements? If a nation holds dearest its moral values … if a nation is given life by its moral values … if a nation is made great by its moral values where is Macron finding these moral values. What is the source of Macron’s moral values that allows him to declaim that nationalism is evil?

Of course in asking about this question of where does Macron’s moral values come from – moralism that allows for killing babies and old people but does not allow for nationalism – we do not consider the absolute idiocy of opposing Patriotism to Nationalism.

First we consider the meaning of “Patriotism.”

From French patriote (15c.) and directly from Late Latin patriota “fellow-countryman” (6c.), from Greek patriotes “fellow countryman,” from patrios “of one’s fathers,” patris “fatherland,” from pater (genitive patros) “father” (see father (n.)); with -otes, suffix expressing state or condition.

Now we consider the meaning of “Nation” from which Nationalism comes from;

c. 1300, nacioun, “a race of people, large group of people with common ancestry and language,” from Old French nacion “birth, rank; descendants, relatives; country, homeland” (12c.) and directly from Latin nationem (nominative natio) “birth, origin; breed, stock, kind, species; race of people, tribe,” literally “that which has been born,” from natus, past participle of nasci “be born” (Old Latin gnasci), from PIE root *gene- “give birth, beget,” with derivatives referring to procreation and familial and tribal groups.

Clearly Macron has his head up his southern most aperture if he thinks he can make the word “Patriotism” oppose the word “Nationalism” in their essence of meaning. In other words, Macron is gaslighting people here.

It might be handy to keep this knowledge in your back pocket because it is not only French Presidents who try to pull of this linguistic charlatanism but American “Evangelicals” as well are constantly trying to play Patriotism off against Nationalism. There is even a book out by one Adam Wyatt titled, “Biblical Patriotism: An Evangelical Alternative To Nationalism,” as if Nationalism can’t be Biblical also.

This attempt to play Patriotism (Angels sing) off against Nationalism (Devil’s poke with pitchfork) is just the kind of thing that Doug Wilson or one of his CREC lapdogs (insert Crosspolitic podcast guys here) would try to sell. When one takes off the veneer what one sees is the ongoing attempt to introduce the idea that we love our own kin and family best when we allow the foreigner, stranger, and alien (Macron’s “others”) to eliminate us (White Western Christians) as a people. In Macron’s world and in the world of Evangelical leaders today Patriotism is the word used to describe what it means for White Western Christians to embrace the suicide cult that is now the new definition of Christianity and Nationalism is the word used about the evil vile people who resist the New World Order with its required ethno-masochism, xenophilia, and oikophobia.

To be a good Patriot today means one gets on the trains taking you to the death camps without murmuring. To be a good Nationalist today means taking your children’s and grandchildren’s inheritance and giving it to Pablo, Mohamed, and Sanjay.

Our second example wherein we find one of the NWO elites invoking the importance of moral comes from Jen Psaki.

“This is not normal, moral, human behavior.”
Jen “Circle Back” Psaki
Former White House Press Secretary
Complaining about Conservatives refusal to believe the Paul Pelosi story

 

Now, what standard do you suppose Jen uses to determine “normal, moral human behavior?”

 

I love it when the left appeals to normal, moral human behavior.

Keep in mind this is a woman who believes in abortion up to birth, sodomy, transgenderism and who knows what else. This is a woman who worked for perhaps the most in your face immoral administration that has ever existed and she wants to lecture Americans on “normal, moral, human behavior.”

The hubris is skull breaking outrageous.

McAtee Contra Mattson on Nationalism

“For my part, I will start by repudiating all of these tired old forms of “post-liberalism.” Because it will not end any differently than it did the last time.”

Dr. Brian Mattson

Substack Article

One of the “tired old forms of ‘post-liberalism’ that Mattson is rejecting is Nationalism. Indeed, the whole article is given over to why Nationalism is evil and how it alone is the reason for two world wars in the 20th century. Of course, in order to conclude that one has to ignore the Internationalism that was seeking to conquer the world in the 20th century. One has to ignore as well that a particular and unique kind of Nationalism arose in the 20th century precisely as a defensive mechanism against the Internationalism being floated by the Bolsheviks. Perhaps Mattson is right that Nationalism has killed its millions but he fails to remember that Internationalism killed its scores of millions. Mattson further fails to remember that all because a wicked Nationalism existed in the 20th century that doesn’t mean that a Biblical Nationalism can’t exist or that those who are now advocating for Nationalism in the Church community are not all members of the Franco, Mussolini, or Hitler fan club. In short Mattson’s “lessons from history” and from Bertrand Russel (of all people) are hardly balanced or well informed.

Mattson sems also to forget in his article that in Genesis 11 the agenda wasn’t Nationalism but it was International Empire and that God’s solution to Babel was on one hand to scatter the effort at Nimrod-ian Internationalism while at the same time to raise up a confederation of Tribes, through the lineage of one man (Abraham) to be a Nation that would be a light to the Gentiles. Mattson likewise seems to forget that Jesus himself sanctions nations — and by extension nationalism — when, in giving the Great Commission, He commands His Lieutenants to “Disciple the Nations.” Mattson again forgets that in the book of Revelation we find it is the Nations in their identity as Nations that are found entering into the new Jerusalem. One can easily imagine Brian saying, as he scans the Nations coming in to the New Jerusalem, “is that wicked or what?”

All this anti-Nationalism, issuing forth from Reformed-dom and Evangelicalism is a testimony to a profound misinterpretation of history as combined with a profound misinterpretation of the Scriptures. Sometimes it really seems to be the case that we are being led by the dumbest smart people the Church has ever produced.

Just exactly what is it about Liberalism that Mattson is holding on to that a theonomic Christian Nationalist order wouldn’t provide? Does he prefer the vision of the Great Reset as embraced by Klaus Schwab, Pope Francis, Yuval Noah Harari, and the Davos crowd? Does he eschew the Christian vision of Victor Orban’s Hungary because it smacks of wicked Nationalism to him? Or, as I suspect, is Mattson, like so many other of our Churchmen cognoscenti, holding on to Tolkien’s vison of Saruman? — “We’ll be a kinder and gentler Christian version of Sauron.” “Give us that Christian Orc-ian social order.”

 
 
 This is what kills me. We may be living in a time that has never seen a bigger push towards one World Internationalism and these clowns wearing  their Ph.D. degrees like extra large clown shoes are out there hanging on the cord of the clown tocsin shouting;
BEWARE NATIONALISM.

Recommending Dow, While Firing Back at the CrossPolitics Utes

Over here Darrell Dow gives a rousing defense of Christian Nationalism.

Christian Defense of Nationalism

It is a defense that nearly all Kinists would be proud to salute. If a Kinist wouldn’t salute it, I don’t know why they wouldn’t.

And yet, at the very end of the article we get this from the boys who drive the crosspolitics.com bus.

From the Editor: We happily affirm the principles outlined in this essay, however, with the rise of kinism in some circles, we want to be clear that we reject that ideology entirely. We understand the principles outlined here to be in harmony with other biblical principles that utterly contradict every form of racial malice, pride, or vainglory.

Now, it should be made very clear here. Darrell Dow had nothing to do with this editorial codicil. Darrell and I, as far as I can tell, are nearly on the same exact page when it comes to Christian ethno-nationalism — that which some people call, by way of shorthand, “Kinism.”

So, what gives with this editorial codicil? Do these boys even know what it is that they are rejecting? Do they know the meaning of Kinism? On the flip side of that do they know the meaning of Kinism’s polar opposite, “Alienism.” If I can’t seem to get through to these blatherskites as to what the Kinism is I support maybe I can get through to them what it is I oppose by opposing Alienism?

https://www.thornwalker.com/recoveries/sobran/pensees.html

One one hand they run an article that I as a Kinist applaud while on the other hand they completely reject Kinism. I figured these guys were at least past the age of smoking weed?

Note that these crosspolitics boys are Doug Wilson CREC fanboys. We know this by their denominational associations and by the fact that they end their editorial codicil with “every form of racial malice, pride, or vainglory.” This is the same language that Wilson used to errantly define Kinism. It seems that Doug’s ignorance is yielding a Walking Dead Zombie infection in the CREC.

Read Dow’s article and tell me that Dow is not advocating for enough of racial/ethnic identity in order to rabidly support the idea that a nation is defined as having a significantly majoritarian racial/ethnic core. Dow clearly loves his people. In the CREC world that rejects kinism that is clearly a form of racial/ethnic pride.

And what does this CREC clown brigade do with Romans 9? How is the Apostle Paul, as inspired by the Holy Spirit, not practicing racial/ethnic pride as defined by these Bozo’s standard when he writes?

 I speak the truth in Christ—I am not lying, my conscience confirms it through the Holy Spirit— 2 I have great sorrow and unceasing anguish in my heart. 3 For I could wish that I myself were cursed and cut off from Christ for the sake of my kinsmen, those of my own race, 4 the people of Israel.

What do the little boys at Cross Politic with their sanctimonious whining about Kinism being a  “form of racial malice, pride, or vainglory,” do with the malice found in Titus 2?

12 One of Crete’s own prophets has said it: “Cretans are always liars, evil brutes, lazy gluttons.” 13 This saying is true. Therefore rebuke them sharply, so that they will be sound in the faith

Are they going to condemn the Holy Spirit who inspired these words?

People like Wilson and his lickspittles act like “Kinism” is a uniform movement with a centralized headquarters where one can mail fan-mail. They act like Kinism is so organized that it has a secret handshake with an anthem everyone must memorize before they get their secret cool Kinist rings. As such they say “Kinism is this,” or “Kinism is that,” as if they are reading off of a dictionary definition. Together in a cult like manner they keep saying in Zombie moaning tones, “Kinism is a ‘form of racial malice, pride, or vainglory.'”

Kinism is a decentralized movement and as decentralized as it is it hardly has one set definition. Think about this for a second folks. Wilson was forever trying to disambiguate himself from the more rabid Federal Visionists. (I still have a problem with his still embraced pale ale.) If Kinists have a more rabid element the main body of Kinists which me and my mates belong to would like to disambiguate ourselves from whatever fevered imagination comes up with the idea that Kinism, generally speaking equals a “form of racial malice, pride, or vainglory.”