A Non-Caucasian Kinist Weighs in on Doug Wilson’s “Nigerian Anglican Woman”

“Just to add my own 2 cents to the debate on spiritual commonality through salvation somehow superseding the created reality of genetic commonality….

1. Such a position is Gnosticism. The spiritual and the physical are not to be juxtapositioned – as if they are in opposition. Christ, as the Word Made Flesh come to redeem and rule the Universe, reestablishes the perfect harmony and coherence of original Creation – the act of God’s speech (the intangible) incarnating the physical (tangible) into a unichotomy of splendid meaning.

2. To set ethnicity and the Gospel in tension is to idolize an abstract salvation over the rest of Scripture and misunderstand both the restorative nature of the Gospel to man’s social and creational order and the framework within which the Gospel operates. The fact that DW claims to be Reformed and Theonomic while abstracting the Gospel from the rest of Scriptural meaning and structure shows how tenuous his grasp on the Bible and reality truly is. The very salvation that Doug Wilson and so many others throw out against ethnonationalism insists on obedience to the Divine Law that establishes ethnonationalism and a careful loyalty to those of the same kindred. Wilson’s theology at this point insists on a generic salvation that binds all people everywhere equally in a way that completely destroys all other Divine distinctions and loyalties. Wilson reduces the entirety of the Image of God in mankind to a binary interchangeability on the basis of one’s salvation or lack thereof.

3. The Bible overall and the Old Testament in particular make clear that blood ties form a continuum from family through to nation (or ethnos). These blood ties come inherent with laws, loyalties and prioritizations that are not due to all Christians everywhere but only those of one’s own ethnos. In Deuteronomy, God lists the nations eligible for integration/full citizenship in Israel. He explicitly cites Edom’s status as a brother people as a right of immigration. This sets forth that there is a fundamental bond, familiarity and communion in genetic ties that God Himself ordained. Negatively stated, a LACK of genetic homogeny leads to a lack of bonding, familiarity and communion. Salvation does not negate these ties but instead cleanses them from sinful excesses and reinforces their proper fulfillment. Any interpretation of salvation that diminishes or denies the God-ordained reality of blood ties in family and nation is ultimately a denial of salvation itself – for to misunderstand the implications of Christ’s redemption is to misunderstand the cause that births the effect.

4. Wilson does not have more in common with a theoretical Nigerian Anglican than he does with his own unsaved kindred. He has a fundamental, Imago Dei similarity and communion of being with those of his own blood that he does not share with any other people – saved or otherwise. He is attempting an obfuscating conflation of 2 distinct things by confusing a commonality of salvation to mean interchangeability and compatibility. Children and adults, male and female, mentally handicapped and mentally sound, Chinese and European alike may be saved but that does not mean the very real differences amongst such groups are negated into a dehumanized “equality” of social order and duty.”

Josiah Serrano
Located Somewhere in Non-North American English Speaking Country

Sisley Huddleston Provides Pithy Enumeration of Western Allied Failures in WW II

It’s almost impossible to find the revisionist evaluation of the mistakes made by the Western Allies in WW II. Sisley Huddleston provides one such review. This does not include the mistakes leading up to our involvement in WW II. Nor does it include anything about the mendacity of FDR in getting us involved in WW II. Nor does it touch on matters like Operation Keelhaul or the US Concentration camps that starved German POW’s at the end of WW II. Much is left unsaid here that might be said but what Huddleston does give us in this pithy summary of the utter failures on WW II  by the Western powers might provoke others to look deeper into this issue.

The West did not “win” WW II. The Banker / Illuminati / Talmudist Bolsheviks won WW II, even if they didn’t get all they thought they were going to get.

Enjoy Huddleston’s summary.

“What did we discern, looking down, as it were, from the celestial height of Sirius? We saw that, from 1917 onward, a main danger to our ancient civilization, to our “way of life,” was the steady growth of Bolshevism. Not only had Russia fallen a victim to the conception of a purely materialist universe, in which force alone counted, not only had Russia become a vast prison in which all the liberties of which we were wont to boast were suppressed, in which a group of men, sitting in the Kremlin, had forged a system of terrorism, of totalitarianism, dependent on an army of police and spies, but outside Russia, in almost every country, the missionaries of Bolshevism had made large numbers of con- verts. In France, especially and perhaps this was the principal (though not the only) cause of her downfall Bolshevism had made immense progress. It was not only the underpaid toilers who were dazzled by the mirage of the Russian Paradise, but intellectuals, professors, writers, artists, what is usually called the elite, worked for Bolshevism. The great industrialists, hoping to control Communism, as the industrialists in Germany had hoped to control Nazism, staking their money on the Red as well as on the Black, financed the party. The bourgeoisie, timorous and foolish, wondered whether it would not be safer to side with the active minority and help the Revolution along.

In England and in America, Communism made less progress, though in many underground channels it oozed into the political and social body. So-called opponents of Bolshevism adopted many of its principles. Individual liberties were lost. To be sure, there was a relative respect for the human person; but whoever did not live before 1914 can scarcely realize how much freedom we have gradually relinquished to the all-controlling, all-devouring State.

We were warned that the real struggle was between the old Liberalism (no matter what label is put on) and the ever- encroaching Communism which would dictate our movements and standardize our behavior and our sentiments and our thoughts. The bloodier and more ruthless thing named Bolshevism we found abhorrent, but we were approaching Bolshevism by easy stages.

Unhappily, Germany was allowed to become the chief champion of anti-Bolshevism Germany which had accepted another form of totalitarianism. From the viewpoint of Sirus, it appeared that, whatever were the faults of Germany, that country was the only bulwark and barrier against Russian Bolshevism in Europe.

Could we not, should we not, have strained our energies to correct the defects of Germany, to give her legitimate satisfactions, long before the advent of Hitler? In the East, the only bulwark and barrier to Bolshevism was Japan. Should we not have strained our energies to keep our friendship for Japan, instead of offering all our sympathies to chaotic China, the prey of war lords, ripe for Bolshevism?
 
From the viewpoint of Sirius, it was at once tragic and comic that Germany, falling under the domination of an extraordinary personage with madness in his brain, should have made war on England and America, his natural allies against Bolshevism. The fatality of history ordained that Japan should range herself against the anti-Bolshevik countries. Thus we had the inconceivable spectacle of Japan and Germany joining hands against the anti-Bolshevik countries, and the anti-Bolshevik countries helping Bolshevism to triumph over its adversaries.We supplied Bolshevism with unlimited quantities of arms. We taught Bolshevism how to make arms for itself. We insisted on the “unconditional surrender” of Germany and Japan, after inflicting the maximum of damage on them, forgetting that after war there should be peace, after destruction, reconstruction. We disarmed, dismantled, shattered to pieces Japan and Germany, rendering them utterly impotent. We refused to admit anti-Bolshevik countries like Spain into international assemblies. We complacently encouraged Bolshevism to fortify itself in defiance of our pledges in the Atlantic Charter in the Baltic states, which were annexed by Russian Bolshevism. We had gone to war to protect Poland, and we abandoned half of Poland to Russian Bolshevism, and permitted the other half to be subjugated by Bolshevism. We had been ready, at one moment, to attack Russia for her action against “brave little Finland,” and then we acquiesced in the taking of parts of Finland. We prepared the way for the victory of Bolshevism in China, deserting our questionable protégé, Chiang Kai-shek, when he was in danger of being swept aside by the rising Red tide. We gave Bolshevism half of Germany, half of Austria, half of Korea, and much besides. In Europe we were troubled greatly when we saw that all the Balkan states were doomed by our war strategy to fall under the yoke of Bolshevism. In short, hypnotized by the conflict with Germany and Japan (Italy was comparatively negligible), the Allies forgot the permanent menace of Bolshevism, and provided Bolshevism with arms and strategic advantages in the future struggle.

At the same time, in praising Bolshevism as the inspirer of national energy (forgetting that Bolshevism preached and practiced surrender in 1917), the Allies gave a new impulse to the potential enemy in their own countries, where the Bolsheviks were granted full scope for their subversive propaganda and agitation. Vital secrets were betrayed with impunity. We formulated a doctrine of peace which forbade us to check Russian expansion on pain of branding ourselves as “Imperialist” warmongers. We hurriedly disarmed, while leaving Russia as heavily armed as ever, by far the most powerful military nation in the world.

From Sirius one could readily foresee the consequences of the decisions taken at Teheran and extended at Yalta. Roo- sevelt was convinced that he could convert Stalin, the head of a materialist and atheistic state, the autocrat of the Kremlin, to Christian and democratic views by making concessions that were both anti-Christian and anti-democratic. He thought the hard-boiled Stalin susceptible to his “charms.” The Anglo-Americans took a pledge to land in France, and operations in the Balkans were forbidden. This was tantamount to making a present of the Balkan peoples to Stalin.

As for Poland, for whose integrity we had gone to war against Hitler, boundaries well within German territory were to be accepted, and about fifteen million Germans thrown out of their own country, by way of compensation for the annexation of the eastern part of Poland by Russia. What had become of the Atlantic Charter which expressly forbade the bartering of territories and populations? What were the Allies to receive in return? They were to obtain Russian help against Japan months after the defeat of Germany help which they did not need, which was never effectively given and was designed simply to enable Russia to participate in the immobilization of Japan in the event of a Russo- American conflict at a later date.

Eight years later, it seems impossible that we should have given up so overwhelmingly much for so preposterously little. The Russians won the war at Casablanca and Teheran. They won Poland, Hungary, Czechoslovakia, Rumania, Bulgaria, Yugoslavia, Manchuria, not to mention the possibility of winning Germany and Austria, not to mention the later winning of China; as for the Baltic states, nobody cared any more about Esthonia, Latvia, Lithuania. . . .

I will, in this place, to show that the Allies were not taken by surprise and that they persisted in their folly, mention the Yalta accords of February 1945, when the war was practically over. The new Polish line in Germany was drawn and the Poles, who had fought valiantly with the Allies, were thrown to the wolves as wicked anti-Communists. Germany was divided into zones, that is to say, the Russians were provided with a platform in Germany from which they might secure the whole country. Berlin itself was placed in the Soviet zone, and the Allies had not even a free corridor by which they could always obtain access to the German capital. By way of reparations, eighty per cent of German industries were to be scrapped, aviation factories confiscated, as well as the factories for the manufacture of synthetic petrol, and exorbitant payments in kind were meant to demolish Germany.

One of the most culpable aspects of the Yalta concessions was the fact that they were entirely unnecessary. No further concessions had to be made to Stalin. His aid was not needed to help conquer Japan the reason given by Roosevelt’s apologists. We now know that Japan was ready for peace on al- most any terms before Yalta. Indeed, President Roosevelt had received through General MacArthur before he left for Yalta much the same peace terms that were accepted by President Truman the following August. Walter Trohan published them immediately after V-J Day.

What would be the value of waking up to realities five or ten years too late? If statesmanship is the art of looking ahead, then statesmanship has never in the world’s history failed so signally. This statement is elaborately confirmed with extensive documentation in the book by the able American journalist and publicist, William Henry Chamberlin, Americas Second Crusade. What is most astonishing, and in many ways disheartening, is that many Americans, who wisely and courageously opposed the “second crusade” are now vigorously supporting a third and more horrible crusade in Asia.

In the meantime, the Allied advance in Italy continued slowly. Both Field Marshal Alexander and Field Marshal Wilson, when the operations against General Kesselring had succeeded, wished to press on to Vienna, to Budapest, the Balkans in general. And it had at one time been hoped to bring Turkey and Greece into a Balkan drive. It is not my business to write of military matters, but any diplomatic observer can see at a glance that such a plan would have far-reaching political consequences. In pushing back the Germans, the Allies would have prevented the Russians from invading and virtually annexing the Balkans. They would also have spared France, as Marshal Petain was hoping. But “Uncle Joe’s” aspirations and feelings had to be considered. He had been promised spoils at Teheran, and he must be allowed to take them. What would happen later in Europe was not considered.

Two capital blunders without counting innumerable mi- nor blunders marked the campaign of the Allies: the prolongation of the war, until the paroxysm of fury and destruction could reach no higher, by the proclamation of “unconditional surrender” at Casablanca; and the diversion of the Allied troops to France instead of to Central Europe, for the sole benefit of Russia. It would be difficult to decide which of these major blunders was of the greater assistance to Bolshevism. They were both unnecessary and pernicious presents, which may well ruin us and our civilization….

A crowning mistake of the Allies was their treatment of defeated Germany. Seemingly, they had learned nothing from the example of the disastrous effects of the Versailles Treaty. The Casablanca formula of “unconditional surrender” assured that Germany would be utterly destroyed in a military way and all but demolished materially, leaving a vacuum into which Russia could penetrate unless Germany was permanently occupied by a large Allied force or rearmed in serio-comic defiance of the whole principle of the Casablanca decision. The division of Germany into zones of occupation was determined at Teheran, Yalta and Potsdam, and this made it virtually certain that a large portion of eastern Germany would remain rather permanently under Russian domination. But this was not all; the notorious Morgenthau Plan to destroy German industry and transform Ger- many into a pastoral and agricultural country, even if it involved the starvation of millions of Germans, was approved by Roosevelt and Churchill (after brief opposition by the latter) at Quebec in September 1944. It was approved and applied, with slight changes, by the Potsdam Conference of July 1945. This led to further demoralization and destruction of the German industrial plant and the transfer of much which remained to Russia, Britain and France.”

Sisley Huddleston
France: The Tragic Years — p. 218-223

Skousen on Marx’s Anthropological Vision

“He (Marx) visualized a regimented breed of Pavolovian men whose minds could be triggered into immediate action by signals from their Masters. He wanted a race of men who would no longer depend upon free will, ethics, morals or conscience for guidance. Perhaps w/o quite realizing it he was setting out to create a race of human beings conditioned to think like criminals.”

W. Cleon Skousen
The Naked Communist — pg. 1-2

Note that in order to do this Marx had to believe with the behaviorist psychologist Pavlov that man’s nature was moldable and so did not have a set nature. Marx believed that man was plastic and could be molded into any image he desired. This lack of belief in man having a set nature explains why he believed he could mold what later became called, “The New Communist Man.”

Consider also that if man no longer has ethics or morals then by definition that man is a criminal. Man who does not believe in transcendent ethics or morals is a man who has no category for right and wrong. This is the definition of a sociopathic criminal. This is also why committed Marxists are NEVER to be trusted. You simply cannot trust someone who really believes that there are no absolutes. You cannot enter into treaties with them. You cannot trust them “man to man.” You can not think of “the better angels of their nature.” The committed (and even uncommitted) are utter moral reprobates. This is a point that Dr. Fred Schwarz teases out in his book, “You Can Trust the Communists to be Communists.”

Don’t miss the idea of “regimented race of men.” What this means is that Marx desired a race of men who were all the same. He wanted all men absolutely leveled. All distinctions would be wiped out — distinctions of race, gender, faith, and age. That is what “regimented” means in the quote above.

This is why Kinism is the issue of the moment. Kinists are the ones fighting for the God ordained distinctions and the Christian understanding of Biblical inequality and Biblical hierarchy. This is why Kinism must have its way because without Kinism there is no stopping the Marxist vision of a “regimented race of men.” Kinism is the 21st century truth that must be restored lest Christendom be lost. The cure to Marxism is Kinism.

Finally, Skousen is far to generous to suggest that Marx didn’t realize what he was doing. If Marx was anything Marx was epistemologically self-conscious. He knew what kind of man he was creating.

Returning to the “More in Common with the Nigerian Anglican Woman” Idea

We  return to this issue of whether the Baptized Christian in the West (BCW) has more in common with a Baptized Christian Ndebele in Zimbabwe (BCNZ) than he has in common with his conservative white pagan neighbor (CWPN).

Stipulated, inasmuch as each has Christ in common they have far more soteriological, eschatological and spiritual realities in common. They share one Lord, one Faith, and one Baptism.

However here is where it gets tricky because the common ground becomes more or less depending on how much Christian capital the CWPN has stolen from Christianity in order to inform his worldview. It also depends on how much pagan capital (animism, Marxism, etc) the BCNZ remains in his worldview. Certainly, when speaking of “more in common” the content of both the Christian’s and the non-Christian’s Worldview needs to be taken into consideration.

One concrete example is polygamy. I know Christians who embrace polygamy. I know many non-Christians who do not embrace polygamy. On the issue of marriage it is strongly possible that I will have more in common with my monogamist pagan neighbor than I have with my Christian brother who believes in polygamy.

Consider that the West has scads of Baptized “Christians” whose worldview is undifferentiated from the zombie WOKE millions that live among us. Are we really to believe that we have more in common with those Baptized “Christians” than we have with the CPWN? Similarly, can it be that I have a “more” in common with the BCNZ that the CPWN if the BCNZ has been afflicted in their thinking by Marxist categories so prevalent in Zimbabwe?

Both Christians in Zimbabwe (and everywhere else) and non Christians have contradictions in their worldviews and depending on how much contradiction remains in their worldview — how much foreign capital has been stolen or remains — we discover how much we have or have not in common with the CWPN vis-a-vis the BCNZ as it pertains to the matters of this temporal realm.

I spent a good amount of time around other Christian clergy in a organization that called itself “Christian.” I am here to tell you that I had very little in common with those people. I also spent a short amount of time in Zimbabwe ministering and though the Christians there were sincere I don’t know that it would be true that I had “more” in common with them in temporal and immediate matters than I do with some in my extended family who make no profession of Christ.

All of this is to say that to make general proclamations that “I have more in common with a Nigerian Anglican Woman than with my conservative white pagan neighbor” is a statement that has more holes in it than a chain link fence.

So, when a BCW pronounces that all BCW’s have more in common with the BCNZ than he does the CWPN he is really getting out on a limb and he shouldn’t be surprised if the limbs gets sawn out from under him.

Of Those Who Claim They are Red-Pilled but are Not — Fisking Doug Wilson

Over here the titular leader of the CREC demonstrates that his feathers are a wee bit ruffled by accusing at least some of his detractors of being slanderers and idolaters;

Augustine, Priorities, Rightly Ordered Affections, and the Red Pilled Among Us

I spend a tad bit of space here responding to Doug’s most recent offering on the subject at hand.

The topic under discussion centers around a previous column that Doug wrote where Doug Wilson offered up this gem quite;

“I have far more in common with Nigerian Anglican women (NAW) who love Christ than I do with white conservative American men who don’t. The line is vertical, always vertical. We are Christians.”

Bret responds,

Doug Wilson now spends the lion’s share of this new column explaining that what he has in common with the NAW is spiritual and eschatological and not temporal and immediate with the result that we learn that Doug really does potentially have more in common with conservative American men then he does the NAW. Further we learn that we all should have known to begin with that Doug was far more intricate and precise in his thinking than he let on in his first column that created this dust up and that those who didn’t realize Doug’s intricate unspecified thinking are slanderers and idolaters.

Doug Wilson now clarifies the matter (somewhat),

“You have more in common with those who are in Christ than you do with those who are not. But you could easily share correct political sentiments with people who are unregenerate, just as a regenerate man and an unregenerate woman could both be red-heads.”

Bret responds,

Note what Doug is doing here. Doug is exchanging the word “different” for the word “more.” In order to be accurate the above should read;

“You have different realities in common with those who are in Christ than you do with those who are not and because of that you could easily share correct political sentiments with people who are unregenerate, just as a regenerate man and an unregenerate woman could both be red-heads.”

Do you see what a difference that makes. Wilson is going all “word-smithy” again in order to defend his linguistic shell game. We do not have more in common with the Nigerian Anglican Woman than we do the white conservative man though we certainly have different things in common. Further those different things we have in common are spiritual realities (salvation, a shared eschatological future, properly ordered loves) that don’t necessarily translate into “more in common” in this temporal life.

Now we conservative white American Christians rightly laugh at the left for not being able to define what a woman is but here we find the New York Times Evangelical Right (Doug Wilson) unable to properly use the words “common,” and “more.”

So, to be precise, we do not have more in common with Nigerian Anglican women than our white conservative neighbors but rather we have other things in common — heavenly things. Wilson’s idea of “more” is vague and confusing and one has to wonder if that is purposeful on Doug’s part. We have other things in common, eternal things, heavenly things, spiritual things, but “not “more in common.” Further, we may well have more transitory and immediate things in common with our white conservative unbelieving neighbors next door to us than we do with Nigerian Anglican women. It is necessary to distinguish here because it is precisely here on earth that concerns the issue that gave rise to the original question to begin with. I might have more temporal and immediate things in common with my unbelieving white Christian neighbors, so I should utilize my temporal, civil resources to further my neighbor’s interests more than those of the Nigerian Anglican women.

Doug Wilson writes,

“Who does the believing Ukrainian soldier have the most in common with? The answer is that he has the most in common with the believing Russian soldier, with whom he will spend eternity in glory—even if through an accident of war, they both wind sending one another into that glory.”

Bret responds,

Do these two hypothetical soldiers on the opposite sides of the war really have the most in common with one another or is it the case that they have DIFFERENT things in common that transcend the war?

Aren’t preachers supposed to be accurate with language?

Doug Wilson writes,

“… then a fortiori how much more would it apply to a fellow Christian, truly regenerate, who wants to bring in the hellscape of socialism…”

Bret responds,

Can it be the case that Doug really believes it is possible for someone who wants to bring in the hellscape of socialism to be “truly regenerate?”So … Doug Wilson is now saying… “Well, of course I could have more in common with certain unbelievers (Nigerian Anglican women) than with certain believers (white conservative Americans) but everyone should have understood that when I said stupid unqualified things like ‘I have more in common with a Nigerian Anglican Episcopalian than I have with a conservative white unbeliever.'”

Doug writes

“Vote the bums out.”

Bret responds,

And herein is a portion of DW’s solution to the current problem;

“Just vote harder.”

Was the man even awake in election cycle 2022? Look, Doug, let it be said without teeth or horns the mess we are in is not going to be fixed by voting harder.

Doug writes,

“Put another way, a virtuous Christian man can love Christ, his wife, his children, his nation, his region, his house, his dog, and his favorite coffee cup.”

Bret responds

Notice that Doug does not include “can love his race” in that list, and before someone pipes up that when Doug mention’s “race” above that could be included in the category of “nation” remember that we already know that Doug does not include the idea that nation is primarily those who descend from a common ancestor and we know this because Doug has said that there is only one race.

Doug Wilson writes,

“Say we have a truly regenerate Russian Christian soldier, who believes Putin’s lies, and a truly regenerate Ukrainian Christian soldier, who has an accurate understanding of the situation.”

Bret inquires,

I’m just curious why the truly regenerate Ukrainian Christian soldier can’t be described as one “who believes Zelensky’s and the West’s lies.”

Doug Wilson writes,

“If I and an unbeliever are trying to shoot my fellow believer across the way, what kind of sense does that make? Well, none, if the calculus being used is made up of carnal values only. It makes no sense if there is no such thing as rightly ordered loves.”

Bret responds,

I’d love for Doug to tease out a list of “carnal values only” that allow for there being no sense in shooting my fellow “believer” across the way.