McAtee Contra Wilson — An Epilogue Touching Ethnic Animosity & Vainglory

One of the sticking points between Doug Wilson and I is the definition of what constitutes ethnic animosity and/or ethnic vainglory. We both agree that ethnic animosity and/or ethnic vainglory is not Christian but as to how to define that, well, the devil is in the details isn’t it?

Before we work on a definition on my end, I have to note that raising the warning to whites of the dangers of ethnic animosity and/or ethnic vainglory, in this cultural moment is, in my estimation, akin to one of Noah’s sons on the ark going bat-snit crazy warning about a coming drought while the rains fell down and the floods came up. “Umm… thanks for the warning son, but for right now could you please just cover that leak in the ark with some pitch?”

We all know of some of the more sensational cases where minority crime on whites is exposed. Eliza Fletcher’s recent kidnapping, rape, and murder is merely the most recent case. Another horror case was that of Channon Gail Christian, aged 21, and Hugh Christopher Newsom Jr., aged 23 in Knoxville, Tennessee. What we may well not know is how common place these kinds of crime are. This booklet pulls back the curtain and forces us to ask Doug Wilson what people group he should be raising a warning to in terms of ethnic animosity and ethnic vainglory.

Click to access 2005-Color-of-Crime-Report.pdf

There are whole books dedicated to this ethnic animosity towards white phenomenon. Colin Flaherty’s “White Girl Bleed A Lot,” and “Don’t Make the Black Kids Angry,” chronicles ethnic animosity by blacks against whites. We also have the whole recent uprising of “Black Lives Matter.” Yet DW suggests that it is the ethnic animosity/vainglory of white kinists who DW needs to warn the world about?

One wonders if DW would call it ethnic vainglory or animosity if the white kinists brought to the attention of people what Jesse Jackson said a few years ago;

“There is nothing more painful to me at this stage in my life than to walk down the street and hear footsteps… then turn around and see somebody white and feel relieved.”

Per the United Nations definition of genocide it is white people who are being genocided. Genocide is defined in Article 2 of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (1948) as,

“any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such: killing members of the group (see “Color of Crime” stats); causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group (government school attendance); deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part1 (current Immigration crisis) ; imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; [and] forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.”

And yet what we get from DW lecturing white Christians is, “no ethnic animosity/vainglory please.” This is like lecturing Custer at the Little Big Horn to“take it easy on the Sioux please.”I mean, “yes, of course, ethnic animosity is sinful and to practice it is sin, however how about some warnings against suicidal altruism Doug?” That would seem more appropriate to the season.

If I could I would ask DW; if he counts it racial animosity/vainglory for  men, for example, to engage in the natural tendency to associate with those of their own race and culture? Is it racial animosity/vainglory to prefer the company of one’s own people?

As to what exactly defines ethnic animosity/ vainglory perhaps we might consider the wisdom of the past on what it is not. I mean DW is always reminding us (following Chesterton) not to tear down a boundary marker before we first know why it was put up to begin with. There has been boundary markers in the past of what does and does not constitute ethnic animosity/vainglory.

“If the Mosaic code, so far as it is adapted to our country, age, and religion, were followed; one half of the miseries of society and the whole of the blunders of politicians would be averted. Under this code, the love of the Hebrew was first to be expended in the bosom of his own family, next upon his own tribe, and finally, upon his nation. Marriages were strictly forbidden with other nations, and to some extent interdicted with other tribes. The Hebrew woman marrying in another tribe forfeited her inheritance. Marriages of that kind were rare. Each tribe was desirous to excel in numbers, as well as in the arts of war and peace. So it became a reproach to be barren.

The whole Mosaic economy fostered and promoted sectional love and sectional pride. It had none of the hypocritical cant of modern philanthropy about “the great heart of humanity” and “knowing no North, no South, no East, no West.” — [see Melville’s Redburn]. On the contrary, it taught most distinctly that the boundaries of each tribe must be recognized, and that the duty and the love of each Hebrew belonged specially to his own tribe.”

W.L. Faison 
‘The Land We Love’, Vol. 2 — p. 366.

“Every sinner, as he is a sinner, is to be hated; every man, as he is a man, is to be loved. Let us love men so that we love not their sins; and love them for that which God made them, not that which by sin they made themselves. For degrees, one man is nearer than another. It is certain there are degrees; for to omit our duties towards our parents is worse than to omit the same duties towards a stranger. The order of our love must be thus: to God, to our own souls, to the souls of our brethren before our own bodies, to our own bodies before other men’s, to the bodies of our neighbors.

[Of the bodies of our neighbors there are also degrees to be followed]: first, to them that have need; and of those, first to the household of faith (Gal. 6:10); and of them, first to our countrymen, brethren and companions (Ps. 122:8); and of these, first them that are our friends and acquaintances; and of them, first to them of our own household and kindred (1 Tim. 5:8); and of our kindred, first the wife (Gen. 2:24, 1 Sam. 1:8).

Of the manner of our love: ‘not so much as thyself, but after the same manner.’ Because thou lovest God, (and therefore all things which are God’s), for this cause love thy brother. pp. 172-3. The rule is that the love to myself must be the rule of the love to my neighbor, and so it is not required that I should do any more for my neighbor than I would do for myself.” p. 209.

Lancelot Andrewes
Chair of the KJV Translation work
‘Pattern of Catechistical Doctrine and Other Minor Works’

We all need to remember a foundational tactic of the Marxists here on this subject. The Marxists discredit something wholesome and natural by inextricably linking it to something sinful. So, if you like to socialize with other whites, its because you hate minorities. If you prefer to provide for your own family, it reveals that you hate immigrants, or “image bearers.” If you prefer that this country be primarily for people of the West it reveals that you are just stuffed to the gills with racial animosity. And if you commit the sin of noticing racial/ethnic patterns — even in the context of raising a sound and necessary warning — you are guilty of committing the sin of racial animosity/vainglory.

If I have to choose between being wrongly charged with racial animosity/vainglory or being rightly charged with attempting to avoid genocide, “I’ll take two of the latter in a to go bag please.”


McAtee & Wilson Converse on Kinism … And you are Privy — Part III

Doug Wilson writes,

Rejecting Malevolence

McAtee begins his piece by quoting my book.

The thing that requires me to identify kinists as racists (and as much in defiance of the Scriptures as any they oppose) is the overt malevolence they routinely show toward the image and work of God Himself. To mock folly and sin is a prophetic duty. To mock the color of a man’s skin is to defy the handiwork of God.

Douglas Wilson, Skin and Blood

And he also quotes me as saying this . . .

Racial malice and racial vainglory are sins against God, not because they take the obvious factors of race into account as they interpret the world, but because they are malicious and vainglorious.”

Douglas Wilson, Skin and Blood

First, notice my use of “racial” and “race” in that quote, which is how I used to speak of these things. Back in the old days before I was wise.

BLM responds

1.) Well, as the younger and less wise Doug is just now having this book come out from the older and more wise Doug, I might suggest that he “stop the presses” so his older and more wiser self can make the changes before the hot off the presses book is released.

DW writes,

So let me begin our interaction with something McAtee does grant at the beginning, and which I am very glad to see—as far as it goes.

Allow me to admit that there have been times when I have seen black people being mocked by white Kinists simply because they are black. I do agree when this happens this is a bridge too far . . . I will grant that it is still sin to mock the color of a man’s skin if Wilson will grant that a majority of people with pigmented skin have been co-opted to genocide White Christians and to roll Jesus Christ off His throne.”

Bret McAtee

First, while I don’t want to quibble, it seems to me that a confession that mean-spiritedness is wrong ought not to be dependent on anybody else admitting to something else. That’s not how this works. But as far as the point he wants me to grant goes, I do grant it. But something more needs to be said, and it is really important.

BLM responds,

1.) The reader needs to go back and read the ellipsis that Wilson omits in order to get a better understanding of my comment to which DW objects.

2.) As long as people go back and look at that ellipsis to see the context I am happy to grant this to Rev Wilson. Certainly, though DW does not really think that my  admitting to some mean-spiritedness happening in the Kinist camp is first dependent on him admitting to something else? My mistake above was in using the word “if” as opposed to using a word like “expecting.”  Thank you Doug for pointing this out. It was a proper correction.

DW writes quoting me,

I do think though that the Rev. Wilson might want to take into some considerations that there currently is an ongoing attempt to genocide white people, or at the very least turn them into hewers of wood and drawers of water (slaves) . . . Does Wilson need to be reminded that it is minorities along with other constituencies who are have been captured by the cultural Marxists . . .”

Bret McAtee

No, I don’t need to be reminded of anything like that. I am in a pitched battle with the commies, and I don’t much care what color the commies are. Here we are, defending our cultural Helm’s Deep, and the next wave of orcs comes swarming up the walls. And then suddenly, down our rampart a little bit, I hear the cry raised by the kinists. “Just shoot at the darker ones!” I would suggest mildly, and with just a hint of exasperation, that somebody doesn’t understand what the hell is going on.

BLM responds,

1.) DW bangs this drum a little too long and a little too loud. If you look at the Kinists writings (Iron Ink, Tribal Theocrat, Faith & Heritage) there is just scads of evidence of arrows skewering the chest of plenty of Caucasian orcs from the Kinist bows. I admit that the claim, from a literary standpoint is colorful and genius, but I deny that it is rooted in reality.

2.) For the sake of argument though, even were it true (and it most certainly is not true) were the Kinist “just shooting the darker orcs” it would still mean that Helm’s deep had fewer enemies assaulting the gates than it had before those kinist arrows were unleashed. And that would be a good thing right Doug?

Still, having said that I agree with you. Christendom is dead whether we are slain by white orcs or by non-white orcs and so they must all be put down.

And here I suppose, just to be safe, I should add that we are talking in metaphors here. I am not a bowman by trade and I have no intent to unleash real live arrows on anybody any time soon.

3.) Still, if DW would be exasperated, exclaiming that “somebody doesn’t understand what the hell is going on,” allow me to suggest that has been the mindset of the Kinists for well over a decade now. Rome is burning and all we get from the CREC normies and Murican Bears is that the Kinists are the Hell-bound enemy, when all we are doing is trying to defend Helm’s deep from all comers. Does the fact that you don’t believe in race and we do believe in race mean that we can’t at least play the role of the Ents to your role of the Riders of Rohan defending Helm’s Deep? Must we be shooting each other in the defense of what little is left of Christian civilization?

DW writes,

Various minorities, pigmented and otherwise, have in fact been co-opted by forces of great evil in the world. That is true. But their program is not really genocidal. What is the color of the co-opters? It would be better to describe all this as suicidal.

But he that sinneth against me wrongeth his own soul: All they that hate me love death.”

Proverbs 8:36 (KJV)

BLM responds,

Again, I have repeatedly written that the co-opters are a problem. I have also repeatedly written that the co-opters of the co-opters are even a bigger problem. And, I would still disagree that this is not genocidal and religio-cidal. The enemy is out to especially genocide the Christian white man and religio-cide the Biblical Christianity of all men. If someone is both white and Christian they live with a larger target on their back. If someone is both non-white and a Biblical Christian they are lonely beyond words. The new proletariat being used (co-opted) to “March through the institutions” are a large percentile of minorities, all perverts, feminists, and many academics. You’ll notice it is not White South African Christians that they are letting come across the borders by the millions.

DW writes,

When the body of whiteness is found, and the gun lying beside that carcass still warm, it will not be to the point to say that the gun hated whiteness. The gun was the instrument, but it was whiteness itself that pulled the trigger. Aggrieved minorities (ethnic, sexual, hearing-impaired, and Vietnam-era vets) are being used as the instrument, sure enough. So?

BLM responds,

Here we find a significant disagreement. Whiteness pulled the trigger or “Whiteness” is pulling the trigger?

And here we find, once again, Doug going all racial. Why is it when DW makes a mistake on the matter of race it seems always to be in the context of how evil the white man is? “Whiteness pulled the trigger?”

And the answer to the “so” question is. “it’s always good to know who your enemy is.”

DW writes

I grant that “whiteness” has been made a central target, and that extermination of Western civilization, that is to say, a generically Christian civilization, is the goal. Much of the besieged city is not truly Christian anymore, but these people hate God so much they don’t want anything that even reminds them of something that used to be Christian.

BLM responds,

No, it is not a generically Christian civilization that the enemy is going after Doug. It is a particularly white Christian civilization that they are going after.

I thoroughly agree with DW’s second sentence above.

DW writes,

But who co-opted these minorities in the first place? Who enlisted them to do this awful thing? Who is using them as a cat’s paw? White people, that’s who. Woodrow Wilson was white. FDR was white. LBJ was white. Earl Warren was white. Margaret Sanger was white. King Charles III is white. Out of the six justices who voted for Roe, only one was black. Elizabeth Warren is white. Ted Kennedy was white. Nelson Rockefeller was white. John Roberts is white. Jimmy Carter is white. Nancy Pelosi is white. Hillary Clinton is white, ditto Bill. John Dewey was white. Richard Rorty is white. Keith Olbermann is white. The overwhelming number of Ivy League grads are white. Shall I go on?

BLM responds,

White people are guilty Doug? But I didn’t think whiteness existed? But maybe I should re-translate this to mean people of European ancestry are guilty?

1.) Now this “who” question brings us to another flash point but instead of quoting from Martin Luther or John Calvin, or Peter Hammond or Maurice Pinay, or Nesta Webster, or Chrysostom I’ll just quote from a Normie hero of the 20th century. Somebody that the CREC crew can get behind;

“In violent opposition to all this sphere of Jewish effort rise the schemes of the International Jews. The adherents of this sinister confederacy are mostly men reared up among the unhappy populations of countries where Jews are persecuted on account of their race. Most, if not all, of them have forsaken the faith of their forefathers, and divorced from their minds all spiritual hopes of the next world. This movement among the Jews is not new. From the days of Spartacus-Weishaupt to those of Karl Marx, and down to Trotsky (Russia), Bela Kun (Hungary), Rosa Luxembourg (Germany), and Emma Goldman (United States), this world-wide conspiracy for the overthrow of civilisation and for the reconstitution of society on the basis of arrested development, of envious malevolence, and impossible equality, has been steadily growing. It played, as a modern writer, Mrs. Webster, has so ably shown, a definitely recognisable part in the tragedy of the French Revolution. It has been the mainspring of every subversive movement during the Nineteenth Century; and now at last this band of extraordinary personalities from the underworld of the great cities of Europe and America have gripped the Russian people by the hair of their heads and have become practically the undisputed masters of that enormous empire.”
By the Rt. Hon. Winston S. Churchill.
 Illustrated London Herald
February 08, 1920 — pg. 5

Now, DW, later in this piece will mock people who make the same observation above that Sir. Winston Churchill makes but this observation has been made by the best of Christian men through the centuries (and the worst of them as seen by the Churchill quote) and I suspect that it is no less true in 2022 then it was in 1920 when Winnie wrote what he wrote. The “who” question … the who as in who is the ultimate co-opter in this drama has to be answered and Sir Winston Churchill steps right up to the mic and gives us the answer. This is not to say that plenty of white shaboss goy do not exist who have played their role and need to be indicted. It is to say that the fire that is alight in Western Civilization will not be put out by anyone who does not want to face the “who” question squarely.

2.) Winnie gave us a pretty good list to offset DW’s list of guilty white shaboss goy but allow me to give a few more names.


First can we admit that among the political players that Doug mentions that they themselves are likewise merely cat’s paws of a much bigger interest. IOW, those white people among the political players that DW lists are being moved and animated by another whole level of Malthusian anti-Christ chicanery that often is peopled by a minority that is white when convenient and not white when not convenient.

Yes, and Herbert Marcuse was white, and so is David Axelrod, and Max Horkheimer, and Jacques Derrida, and Janet Yellin, and Timothy Geitner, and Chuck Todd and Spielberg, Katzenberg and Geffin, and George Soros, and Louis Brandeis and Felix Frankfurter, and Felix Weil and FDR’s handler Bernard Baruch, and Nixon’s handler Henry Kissinger, and Samuel Untermeyer, and George Lukacs, and Wilhem Reich and Sigmund Freud, and Leon Bronstein, and the overwhelming number of Harvard graduates are “white.” Shall I go on Doug? OK.. I will

Bella Abzug was “white,” and Gloria Steinem, and Betty Friedan of “The Feminist Mystique Fame” and Sec. State Anthony Blinken, and Sec. Homeland Security, Alejandro Mayorkas, and Rachel Levin the Admiral in the Biden Administration that seemingly can’t answer the question, “What is a Woman.”  are “white.” Louis B. Mayer was “white.” So is Roman Polanski and Bill Maher.

I feel like Captain American when I say; “I can do this all day.”

DW writes,

So when the commies are wrecking the place, which they are, you don’t get to say that all the white people who cooked up the destructo-plans in the first place are doing their evil deeds in spite of their noble skin color, and that all the darker-skinned groups that have been enlisted as patsies in the cause are doing it because of the color of their skin. How convenient for the thesis. What my net don’t catch ain’t fish.

Bret responds,

1.) That’s cute. Except no Kinists has ever said that or I suspect ever thought it. Is DW conflating Kinism with CI?

2.) Commies are only white people DW? If Paul can justly characterized Cretins with negative attributes isn’t it time to justly characterize another specific people group as more than just being “white.” Who are the real patsies DW and who have used the willing white Shaboss Goy from time immemorial?

I am glad to point the finger at the evil white men who have traded in their inheritance for a pot of red stew and have done so repeatedly on Iron Ink. Are you Doug, willing to name the people that Winnie named?

Thanks … I didn’t think so.


Vox Day weighs in on the matter. He is not as winsome as I am.

Doug Wilson is a Boomer Fraud


Wilson & McAtee Converse on Kinism — And you are Privy — Part II

Doug Wilson writes (DW)

So of course, kinism only starts to look like a responsible option in demented times. You know, I find that I am using the word demented far more often than I used to. But it has to be admitted that kinism can start to look reasonable in comparison to what the commies are doing. This is because the commies despise whiteness far more than the kinists love it.

Bret responds,

1.) LOL … talk about a backhanded compliment. It’s like telling a chap that his wife is a real beauty compared to all the ugly women she hangs around.

2.) Doug uses the word “demented” a great deal. Personally, I find myself reaching for “insane.”

3.) I seriously doubt that the commies despise whiteness far more than the kinists love it. My mates and I have taken tons of abuse from “Christians” all because we have defended Kinism. How many well platformed Christian ministers have told me and my mates we are “hell-bound” because we have embraced what the Church fathers through the centuries have embraced? (See Achord & Dow’s book “Who is My Neighbor”)

4.) Note here that once again Doug is equating Kinism with whiteness AND Doug is talking about race again when he denies elsewhere that he believes in race. The man just cannot get away from it. (Rightly so, since no one previous to 1950 or so except for the disciples of Franz Boas denied the reality of race.)

DW writes,

But you also have to realize that it only looks like a responsible option in the same way that a Calvin-Klein-hot-couple-in-their-skivvies ad looked back in the eighties, you know, sultry and miserable, when compared with a couple of body positive type models in one of their ads today, in which the probable-girl-unit has a beard, and the guy-unit is probably pregnant. The former ad was certainly sinful and worldly, while the latter is demented. See? There is that word again.

BLM responds,

You got to love DW’s writing ability. It’s hard to keep up.

I might say that DW’s “Christian cosmopolitanism” looks like a responsible option when compared to living in Mordor. Doug’s “Christian cosmopolitanism” is Sauraman’s vision coming to pass as compared to Sauron’s vision of social order. Nobody can deny it is a damn site better than living in Mordor but all the same I’d rather not pass the mashed potatoes to my Christian Uruk-Hai neighbor. I’m sure Uruk-Hai Christians are fine people and living with them would be better than living with the Orcs of Mordor but their conversion doesn’t mean that living together in one nation is ideal. To think otherwise is, well, insane.

DW writes,

All of this is to say that the powers that be (with most of them being as white as the back of Elizabeth Warren’s knees) are doing their level best to make it appear like the kinists are the only ones who haven’t taken a complete leave of their senses. So why do I still want to cordon that kinist realm off with yellow caution tape like I do?

Perhaps a little interaction with McAtee’s piece will help.

BLM responds,

1.) Doug is talking about race again. Something he says does not exist.
2.) Doug is suggesting again that only white people are kinists.

3.) I would dearly love to know where all these “powers that be” are who are doing their level best to make it appear like the kinists are the only ones who haven’t take complete leave of their senses. I mean, after being out in the wilderness all these decades it would be nice to meet some of these “powers that be,” so that I and my mates can come in from the cold.

DW writes,

Race and Ethnicity

And so first a little something on the vocabulary of the whole thing.

Keep in mind that Doug keeps talking about race when Doug has said he does not think race exists. How can he do that?”

Bret McAtee, in aforesaid article

This is a fair cop, and there are two layers to my response. The first is that I have been talking about these issues for decades now, and over that time I have learned a great deal. One of the things I have learned is that a more biblical way to talk about these issues is in terms of ethnicity and not in terms of race. So while it is true that I believe that there are not difference races of men, there are different tribes.

The nations of men (ethnoi) are recognized as a thing in Scripture, while races are not. But a number of the things I have written on this subject were from the time before I came to this conclusion and hence I used the more common vocabulary of race, races, and racism. You will see that in some of the quotes below. Before I would speak of the sins of racial animosity and racial vainglory where now I would want to say ethnic animosity and ethnic vainglory. So if you run across me saying something like the former, just translate in your head.

BLM responds

1.) And yet as I have noted repeatedly above, DW keeps talking about white people and whiteness in this piece. This is a strange habit for someone who doesn’t believe in race or races.

2.) Let’s understand that what DW is saying here is that the only differences between Ndebele and Xhosa ethnicity and Saxon and Icelandic ethnicity is tribal. Prima facie that is insane… ok, ok… it’s just demented.

3.) DW may not believe that races don’t exist but God seems to believe that they do. Consider;

A mixed race shall settle in Ashdod, And I will cut off the pride of the Philistines. Zechariah 9:6.

Can the Ethiopian change his skin or the leopard his spots? Then also you can do good who are accustomed to do evil. Jeremiah 13:23

DW writes,

The second layer is that I sometimes I still defer to the current usage, either to save time, or because I am reverting to my factory settings, and old habits are hard to break. But it is true that, given the option, I would much prefer to speak of the sins and temptations of ethnic groupings because I believe that this is way closer to the way Scripture speaks of them.

Where there is neither Greek nor Jew, circumcision nor uncircumcision, Barbarian, Scythian, bond nor free: but Christ is all, and in all.”

Colossians 3:11 (KJV)

There was no racial difference between Scythians and the Greeks, but there were profound ethnic differences, which the blood of Christ came to address and reconcile. The difference between the kinists and me at this point is that we have both been asked to organize and catalog a vast library with various books from 13 different languages. I want to group the books topically and/or by language, while the kinists want to organize all the books by color—blue books over here, and red books over there. I think my way is more useful.

Bret responds,

1.) The blood of Christ came to address and reconcile but not to destroy and eliminate nature. After all, it is a Reformed maxim that “grace restores nature.” Before conversion and after conversion Scythian and the Greeks, remain Scythian and Greeks and Red and Yellow men remain Red and Yellow men. Their oneness in Christ does not eliminate the creaturely distinctions that which were assigned by God as unto each of them.

2.) Here again, DW is reducing race to a matter of skin color with his book cover illustration. This is a not a helpful reductio. It also finds Doug embracing the concept of race again.

3.) The kinists are looking at more than just the color of the book covers. Kinists understand that the color of the book cover is on every page and in all the ink. The color of the book is one thing that makes the book the book. The other reality that makes the book the book is the content of the book but those two things are not completely unrelated.

DW writes,

At any rate, I would really like to see us all retire the word racism. The word is almost completely useless by this point anyhow—I mean, the Left wants to apply it to everything, which has made it worthless as a designation of anything specific, particularly as a designation of a sin. It is not a biblical word.

BLM responds,

Here we can agree. Racism is a word popularized by Leon Trotsky for the very purpose of attacking the previous heretofore Christian normative.

McAtee & Wilson Converse on Kinism … And You are Privy — Pt. I

The first thing I have to say regarding Doug Wilson’s nearly 4000 word response to me is to agree with DW’s observation that given our shared reading list one would think we should be arm and arm colleagues. Alas, that isn’t true. I would note however, that DW has said many things over the years that I would salute. His comment about how “R2K couldn’t build a taco stand let alone a civilization” was one of the all time truly great observations. DW’s refutation of all things R2K are observations that are significant. All, this to say that there likely is a great deal that Doug and I have in common. However, I remain convinced that DW has it significantly wrong when it comes to the issue of kinism, as well as his amber ale version of Federal Vision. Indeed, DW is so errant that on this subject of Kinism there is a gulf between us that no man can cross. It is not merely as matter of nuance though I understand why some would wish that to be the case.

Second, by way of preliminary observation allow me to note that my criticisms of DW come as from the Right. I only note this because Doug has, in the past, said that he is so far right that it is not possible to critique him as from the Right. The criticisms of DW from the kinist community expose the non-truth to that observation. Indeed, as I have said before, I am convinced the Doug is often holding down the right side of the left so that there is plenty of room as from the Right to critique DW. When I critique DW I a not punching right. I am punching left.

Allow me to say that I am glad for DW’s endorsement when he writes;

And the third reason (I am tackling this just now) is that because we are all living under the current regime of a crazed board of governors overseeing the current ESG Madhouse, kinism is looking more and more like a responsible option to more and more conservative Christians, and so I think that some warnings are in order.

1.) Yes, the very same kind of Kinism as articulated by Georgia Meloni, the new Prime Minister of Italy. I mention her because DW was all agog over her statement just as we Kinists were all agog over her statement. Kinists in our agog-ness are being consistent. Doug in his agog-ness is not being consistent.

2.) Kinism is indeed the only responsible option for genuinely conservative Christians. It is the only option left on the table. Quite contrary to DW’s preferred pluralistic classically liberal civic Nationalism, Kinism provides the only consistent ground from which to protest the international cosmopolitan cultural Marxist left.

DW writes,

For example, if you look at the tweet I have helpfully included off to the right here, from a gent named Jan Schlebusch (who elsewhere calls himself a kinist), you will immediately see the pressing need we have to disambiguate, as Wikipedia would put it. There is no way to defend Western culture (which has been a major aspect of my calling in life), without incurring the charge of racism. This is a standard tactic of the Left. And in my experience, there have been many conservative Christians who would have joined in with this effort earlier if there hadn’t been all these darn kinists out there doing their level best to make the charge seem plausible.

BLM responds,

First, the whole purpose of my response is to help DW disambiguate. A laudable goal to be sure.

As to the paragraph above this requires the “to whom” question? To whom has the charge of “racism” against Kinists been plausible? Certainly, the charge is plausible to all the Normies and Murican Bears out there who have ingested the cultural Marxist narrative. I and my mates have dealt with scads of CREC type normies who have hurled the charge of “racism” at me and my Kinist mates, and that quite without any justification. So, allow me to challenge DW to consider that the problem has not been with Kinists but rather the problem is CREC type normies influenced by a cultural Marxist narrative that allows them to shriek “RACISTS… RACISTS at the battle hardened Kinists.

And so as to this anecdotally based charge that the Kinists have been responsible for otherwise solid conservatives not joining the battle to save Western Civilization I say… BUNK! Otherwise solid conservatives who have not joined the Kinists are not really solid conservatives but are just those who are holding down the right side of the cultural Marxist left, or like DW are trying to promote their weak sauce version of a pluralistic classically liberal civic Nationalism. These otherwise solid conservatives I have found to be knee jerk reactionaries that shriek in horror at the Kinist explanation that God made peoples to be distinct and that regeneration does not destroy nature with the result that all Christians sing along with that classic hymn, “We Are The World.”

And allow me to say here that as long as DW keeps trashing Kinism he is frustrating his own work in fighting for Western Civilization. DW wants the fruit (Christian Civilization) without accepting the root (Christian Kinism).

DW writes,

So when the commies are wrecking the place, which they are, you don’t get to say that all the white people who cooked up the destructo-plans in the first place are doing their evil deeds in spite of their noble skin color, and that all the darker-skinned groups that have been enlisted as patsies in the cause are doing it because of the color of their skin. How convenient for the thesis. What my net don’t catch ain’t fish.

BLM responds,

1.) DW mentions in this piece that he does not believe in race and here again above we catch DW talking about evil “white people.”

2.) DW’s statement above indicates, once again, that DW thinks only white people are kinist. That is NOT true as my several non-white Kinists friends will attest to.

3.) DW keeps repeating the mistaken idea that race is only about melanin levels. Race is not merely about skin color.

4.) This may be a convenient thesis but I would love for DW to quote a Kinist saying it. No kinist believes that white people do evil despite their skin color nor that non-white people do evil because of their melanin levels.

5.) However, having said that, we cannot negate the reality of what just voting trends tell us. When it comes to minority voting patterns, in terms of percentile, they overwhelmingly vote for candidates who are carrying the cultural Marxist banner. This is not universally true but as it is generally true we can observe that the pattern means something. It means that they have been enlisted as patsies in the Cultural Marxist cause.

There will be more on this subject later.

DW writes,

So rather than say that kinists were Christian nationalists before it was cool, I would prefer to say that kinists were playing the role of a dog in the manger—not really enjoying their brand of conservatism, and by their fringe behavior preventing others from wanting to join them. Schlebusch is skeptical of our motives, but I can still state them plainly. Conservative Christians aren’t worth a cultural dime if they aren’t routinely accused of being racists, and conservative Christians aren’t worth a cultural dime if the accusation has any merit or substance.

BLM responds,

DW accuses me and my mates of playing the role of a dog in a manger. I accuse the CREC types as playing the role of pig enjoying their slop, who by their brand of “conservatism,” and by their mainline normie behavior, prevent true conservatives from actually conserving the things that matter most. The CREC types, all the while insisting that they are putting out the 5 alarm fire that is Christian civilization are in point of fact helping the arsonist cultural Marxists burn the whole thing down by their pointing and spluttering at the Kinists, who in their lights should be arrested, for trying to put out the fire.

Allow me to say boldly that Kinism as a movement cannot be accused with merit or substance as being racist. This is not to say that there might be a few folks who self identify as kinist who are off the reservation saying wild things, but as a movement Kinists are worth far more than a cultural dime since accusations of “racism” against them have no merit or substance.

The accusations against Kinism as “racist” only has substance if one presupposes the worldview of Cultural Marxism. In the cultural Marxist worldview Kinists are racist every time and all the time and we are damned proud of it. We wear it as a well earned badge of honor. Evil people calling us evil names keeps us warm at night.