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.

In the early 1950’s a young man named William F. Buckley was tapped by the CIA to serve as the single head of the conservative movement that was rising then in America. The problem the CIA hoped to correct by tapping Buckley as their guy is that the conservative movement was getting out of control because it was such a broad and variegated movement. By anointing Buckley as the head of the movement that gave the CIA the ability to streamline the conservative movement into one single expression and thus could be monitored, controlled, and manipulated more easily. In his position as unofficial head of the conservative movement Buckley became the guy who was the gatekeeper of conservatism. Without Buckley’s legitimizing nod any hopeful movement conservative was out in the wasteland. By not granting that nod Buckley read Robert Welch and the Birchers out of the conservative movement early on. In later years Buckley threw Sam Francis, Peter Brimelow, and Joe Sobran out of the conservative movement. Murray N. Rothbard’s “The Betrayal of the American Right,” exposes all this.

The reason I go into all this history is to suggest that it may well be being repeated. Here we are in a time where Christian Nationalism is on the rise and suddenly we find the left wing Media anointing who the “Leader” is going to be by hotfooting it out to Moscow Idaho to do a mild hit piece on Doug Wilson. They hit Doug just hard enough for everyone to think that Doug must now be the leader of this Christian Nationalism movement that they kind of like. Next, we learn the BBC is coming out to do another mild hit piece on Doug.

The irony in all this is that Doug has said how he was a National Review junkie for years and years. Doug loved him some William F. Buckley. Now Doug has become Wm. F. Buckley. Pity poor Doug.

Now, any other time Conservatives know that they are not going to get a fair shake from the National and International media and so they decline the opportunity to be flayed alive. Conservatives know that in interviews their words will be spliced and segments will be edited by the Lugenpresse. But does that stop Doug from opening his doors to the Lugenpresse? Not Doug … nope, Doug steps right up to the microphone and speaks. And in so doing what has happened is that Doug becomes the leader of the “Christian Nationalism” movement and this despite the fact that all Doug is offering is warmed over classical Liberalism and not Christian Nationalism at all. Doug now has what Buckley had long ago and that is the ability to read who is and who is not part of a movement that the media says is such a danger. The man steps right up to the microphone in his latest column and thanks the media for making him the titular head of the Christian Nationalist movement;

“Christian nationalism is on the rise!”, they (the Lugenpresse) shout, like Paul Revere riding off into the night, and then their Exhibit A is the work God has assigned to us in our little town. Okay, so now we are part of the face of Christian nationalism. Now this is a term I would not have picked out at a store, but it is a term (for reasons explained elsewhere) I am willing to work with). Now the fly in their ointment is this. I have been publicly arguing against various forms of anti-Semitism for years now, and I have been brawling with white supremacists and kinists for decades. So as part of my acceptance speech, I am now in a position begin this way. “Thank you, thank you. This is truly a great honor. I want to begin by saying that Christian nationalism stands for the need for mankind to base all of our laws on the firm foundation of coming to God the Father through the worship of a Jew. And because of this we have good news for all mankind, for the Jew first, and then also for the Greek (Rom. 1:16 ; 2:9-10).

The hilarious thing is that Doug has already said that Kinists are not allowed in his Christian Nationalism and so Doug is already acting like Buckley in assigning who does and does not get to be part of his movement. And as I said earlier Doug is no more Christian Nationalist with his classical liberal lean then Lenin was a Russian Royalist.

In short, those of us who are Christian Nationalist are being betrayed by the Lugenpresse being allowed to choose for us who is the head of the movement we have been serving as winter soldiers now for years. Wilson’s is as much of a dead end for Christian Nationalism as Buckley now in retrospect is seen as having been a dead end for conservatism.

What are the alternatives?

Well, I think we need to start looking more and more towards Dr. Adi Schlebush’s “Pactum Institute,” as providing the only real resistance left. Publishers like Zach Garris and Ruben Alvarado need our support if we are going to raise a protest to the dishwater vision of Doug Wilson’s Christian Nationalism ruining us all.

At the recent “County before Country” conference held in our favorite kinist hater’s (Michael Foster) church I had several friends in attendance who later reported back to me their impressions. What I found most interesting about their impressions is that they were thoroughly under-impressed with the speakers. I think the common input was “Meh.” However, they did enjoy the conference and were glad they went because of the networking that they did as combined with the ability to be around other men who shared their some world and life view as well as Christian confession.

One other motif I wanted to touch on in defense of myself was the common report from more than one chap that I knew who was in attendance. It seems that my name came up in more than one conversation. Christian Nationalism is catching on and being a public Kinist and a Reformed minister of the Gospel of Jesus Christ my standing is a bit unique. Most Reformed clergy are running full tilt away from any notion of Christian ethno-Nationalism, while I, following the words and sentiments of the Reformed Fathers, am pleading with Reformed believers everywhere to embrace this basic building block of Reformed Christianity. Anyway, it seems that a consensus is forming that little old shy and retiring me is “over the top with his rhetoric.”

Now normally, this might cause me to reflect on whether this may be true or not but I know that the problem here is not my over the top rhetoric but the inability of people to understand how dangerous of a situation we are presently in. We are in a situation where all that is left to people like me is the strength of my rhetoric as combined with the cogency of my arguments.

People seem to forget that this charge of being “over the top with his rhetoric” is not new to me. They charged the Reformers with the same sin;

Neither the vulgarity nor the violence nor the charges of satanic motivation nor the sarcastic mocking is unique to [Luther’s later Jewish] treatises. If anything, Luther’s 1541 Against Hanswurst and his 1545 Against the Papacy at Rome, Founded by the Devil contain more scatology, more sallies against the devil, more heavy sarcasm, and more violence of language and recommendations. The polemics of the older Luther against the Turks and Protestant opponents are only slightly more restrained. Against each of these opponents- Catholics, Turks, other Protestants and Jews- he occasionally passed on libelous tales and gave credence to improbable charges. In all these respects Luther treated the Jews no differently than he treated his other opponents.

Mark U Edwards
Luther’s Last Battles (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1983), 140.

If the language of Calvin’s Institutes seems harsh in places we should remember that this was the mark … of theological controversy in that age. The times in which Calvin lived were polemic. The Protestants were engaged in a life and death struggle with Rome and the provocations to impatience were numerous and grievous. Calvin, however, was surpassed by Luther in the use of harsh language as will readily be seen by an examination of the latter’s work, The Bondage of the Will which was a polemic written against the free-will ideas of Erasmus. And furthermore, none of the Protestant writings of the period were so harsh and abusive as were the Roman Catholic decrees of excommunication, anathemas, etc., which were directed against the Protestants.

Loraine Boettner
Calvinism in History: John Calvin

People may not want to believe this but the times we are living in, in terms of the safety and health of the visible Church, are even more dangerous than they were in the 16th century at the dawn of the Reformation.  These times call for the sharpest rhetoric one can find in their quiver. My detractors will be interested in knowing that I’ve, more than once, begged forgiveness during my times of confessing sin before the throne of God for being too lackluster and retiring in conversations.

We are currently sitting on the precipice of a long continuance of the Church’s second Babylonian captivity. This is not a time for a kind of speech that will fail to communicate the danger(s) we are under currently. I will not apologize for my rhetoric and I will not moderate my sense of urgency that my rhetoric is seeking to communicate.

Buckle up normies and sophisticates alike. This is a ride that is going to require a re-engineering of your sensitive sensibilities.