Contra Steve Hemmke and Alienism
It strikes me that God has ordained these times to be those times when the moon is perpetually full and some house of one constellation is in another house of some other constellation which always means that there is a “bad moon on the rising,” and the “lunatic fringe” is filling in every crevice. I mean there are not enough digits in the land of six fingered children to fill all the holes in all the dykes where all the water is rushing in as in the Church — never mind everyplace else the water is leaking into our living quarters.
I’ve already dialogued with Rev. “All My grandchildren are descendants of Rabbi Cohn” Wilson a couple times recently here. However, though Wilson is clearly the moon-bat in charge of the CREC there are more than enough other moon-bat clergy in his denomination to fill all the belfries in all the Dracula horror films ever produced.
Now, I don’t want anybody thinking that I am prejudiced against the CREC. No sirree Bob. I am an equal opportunity disemboweler of almost all expression of our modern clergy corps. It is true there are times that I go on safari seeming to hunt only one breed of clergy — and lately that has been those of the CREC variety — but on the whole if you peruse Iron Ink you will see that I am not bias, prejudiced or discriminatory in the least when it comes to which stuffed shirts I enjoy stuffing.
This time we find the Rev. Steve Hemmeke of the CREC grazing in his natural habitat (his blog) as I discover him in my scope from 300 yards away.
Steve writes a piece titled, “So, on Ethnicity, Kinism, and Nationalism” In that piece he writes;
“Calling racial preferences inherently racist as I did is an overstatement. I recant.”
Bret responds,
Civilizations of the last 1000 years exhales with a sigh of relief over this recanting. Imagine all the shame that would have accrued if Steve had stuck to his guns on this overstatement.
However Steve is not done,
And yet.
Those ethnic or racial preferences within us are not justified by their natural existence, much less are they obligated by Scripture or natural law.
Bret responds,
Q. 124. Who are meant by father and mother in the fifth commandment?
A. By father and mother, in the fifth commandment, are meant, not only natural parents, but all superiors in age and gifts; and especially such as, by God’s ordinance, are over us in place of authority, whether in family, church, or commonwealth.
Whatever happened to the 5th commandment?
Whatever happened to I Timothy 5:8?
8 But if anyone does not provide for his relatives, and especially for members of his household, he has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever.
Whatever happened to Romans 9:3?
For I could wish that I myself were cursed and cut off from Christ for the sake of my people, those of my own race,
What happened to Jesus and the Syrophoenician woman?
But Jesus said to her, “Let the children be filled first, for it is not good to take the children’s bread and throw it to the little dogs.”
Even Jesus makes these distinctions but these denizens of the “IQ 70 good ole boy clergy club” boldly start ripping pages out of Scripture to make room for their pagan worldview.
Just remember though… Rev. Steve has told you that “ethnic or racial preferences within us are not justified by their natural existence, much less are they obligated by Scripture or natural law,” and you have his word on that.
Rev. Steve presses ever on,
They are like any natural impulse or temptation, which must be disciplined by the Word. When I hear “God Bless the USA,” I can agree and even get emotional, but I need to temper it with “God may judge the USA, instead.”
Bret responds,
This is Steve’s impression of either Captain Obvious or his right hand man Lieutenant Nitwit.
Just exactly who is Steve writing to in the Church who really believes that love for kith and kin is rises above the necessity to be faithful to the Lord Christ? If Rev. Steve thinks that Kinists believe that (and that is the context Steve is writing in) he has never met a kinist but only writes about them as listening to the sounds that come from the fevered swamps that are called the CREC.
The Wise One from Howell Michigan writes,
When we say grace perfects nature, we mean exactly this. Natural affection needs sanctifying, not celebrating or justifying without qualification, just because the Left vilifies whites or America, or just because we feel it well up in us naturally. C.S. Lewis, in The Four Loves, on Storge, is excellent on this.
Bret responds,
Right … natural affection needs sanctifying and right now the natural affection that needs sanctifying the most is the natural affection of love for kith and kin. This is seen in Steve’s attack on natural affection as not being… well, natural. Seemingly, everybody wearing a clergy collar right now thinks its open season on love for kith and kin. From all quarters what we get relentlessly is how wicked it is to love our people over other peoples as if making love to my wife is somehow a sin because I didn’t make love to someone else’s wife.
I feel like I’ve fallen into Stan Lee’s Marvel Universe and I am Captain Kinist fighting for all the things that our Father’s took as routine. I am fighting against a spell that has been cast be evil Lex Gramsci that finds Christians entering into another dimension where natural relations are seen as yucky.
Rev. Steve writes,
(To clarify, I have no qualms about tearing up watching a Trump rally where Lee Greenwood sings, “God bless the USA.”)
Captain Kinist responds (Alias meek and mild shoeshine boy Rev. McAtee),
And here my instinct is always to laugh at the same.
A bunch of Dispensationalist waving Israeli flags getting all verklempt over a guy who poisoned the nation with his Operation Warp-speed.
Rev. Steve writes,
So equating natural affection for one’s own tribe or race with the fifth commandment obligation to honor our fathers seems a mistake to me. I shouldn’t come to hate my country and its founders. But neither should I adore it without qualification, without some theological lenses on, evaluating that nationalism.
Bret responds,
What kinist ever floated the idea of “My country right or wrong, still my country?” Anymore, I am against my people because I love my people. Indeed, I wouldn’t be so against my people if I didn’t love my people like a Kinist loves his people.
Nobody, in the Kinist camp (and believe me I would know) is getting teary eyed when Lee Greenwood strikes up the band. Nobody in the Kinist camp adore their people without qualification. Indeed, as we see in this column I am hardly adoring Steve — who I count as being a member of my people. There is no movement that is more critical of the history of these united States than the Kinist. We see every fault and paint it black. And we do this because we love our people.
That first sentence of Steve immediately above though is monumentally stupid. Indeed it may take the prize for the stupidest statement of the day by a member of the clergy. (And believe me that is no mean feat.)
The very essence of the fifth commandment is to have a natural obligation to one’s own tribe or race. See the Westminster Larger Catechism on the fifth commandment.
Steve Hemmeke writes,
One of you defined racism as “the belief, explicit or implicit, that one race is born morally superior to another race. It creates arrogance and pride in one group while also lowering the other group, sometimes to sub-human status.”
Bret responds,
No Kinist I know believes that some peoples/races are ontologically less than other peoples/races. Here we have (purposely I would say given how often Kinist have repeated what is to follow) the error of not distinguishing between Christian Identity (Dual seed) with Kinism. Some CI people might believe that but no Kinist believes that.
Now as it pertains to superiority and inferiority most kinists will tell you that superiorities and inferiorities run through all races/peoples so that some peoples are superior than others at some matters while at the same time being inferior to others in other matters. The white man, when looking at the last 1500 years seems to be inferior in remaining loyal to the God of the Bible who called him and made him great.
Steve blathers on,
That is hard racism, but there are lower-grade versions that are not the woke-white-guilt variety. I would add that Kinism asserts some level of principled segregation or preference for one’s own ethnicity, with NO inherent animosity or belief of superiority toward other races. (Though some strands of it are undoubtedly white supremacist.) This is a view I believe should be soundly rejected by church leadership. I stand by Uri’s post.
Bret responds,
I’ll stick with St. Augustin and John Frame’s analysis here,
Difference of race or condition or sex is indeed taken away by the unity of faith, but it remains imbedded in our mortal interactions, and in the journey of this life the apostles themselves teach that it is to be respected, and they even proposed living in accord with the racial differences between Jews and Greeks as a wholesome rule.
St. Augustine on Galatians 3:28
“Scripture, as I read it, does not require societies, or even churches, to be integrated racially. Jews and Gentiles were brought together by God’s grace into one body. They were expected to love one another and to accept one another as brothers inthe faith. But the Jewish Christians continued to maintain a distinct culture, and house churches were not required to include members of both groups.”
John Frame,
“Racism, Sexism, Marxism”
I know it is hard to believe I’d prefer the Bishop of Hippo, and John Frame over Steve Hemmke and Uri Briseto (not to mention the rest of Church history) but that’s just the way I roll.
Steve Hemmke writes,
When Uri says “chased out of the church,” realize that we do this all the time with other issues: “We’ll have no talk of women in leadership here.” “You want to blow up abortion clinics? You are NOT welcome here.” I’ve had to do this once or twice at church, in my years of ministry. All the talk charging that I want to excommunicate people with different social theories, or throw out discipline procedure, is uncharitable to my and Uri’s position. The question is simply where the Overton window is. I’m deeply concerned that it has shifted recently in our circles, toward allowing and justifying ethnic preferences, in reaction to the immigration crisis and leftist reverse discrimination for minorities, which we now face, and should oppose. However. Whatever happened to judging people by the content of their character, instead of the color of their skin? That is a sound Scriptural principle, regardless how some may want to ad hominem attack the man who said it.
Bret replies,
1.) Rev. Steve and Rev. Uri seem to forget that when they so glibly talk about excommunicating people they are talking about the declaration that said excommunicated persons are hell bound and outside the Kingdom. The keys of the Kingdom have shut up the Kingdom against those who are excommunicated. This is a little bit more than “You’re not welcome here.”
2.) The Overton window has shifted? Excuse while I carry on my belly laugh elsewhere.
If the Scripture allows ethnic preferences than who is the “church” to declaim against it? Remember all “ethnic preference” is, is “family preference” at the next level. I show my ethnic preference every day. I buy shoes for my children and not the children across the street (unless I have extra money and they are in need). I buy grocery for my relatives when in need before I buy groceries for strangers when they are in need. I attended my Uncle’s funeral who died of the State killing him with Covid. I have not yet attended the funeral of any other countless number of people who have also been murdered. This is just mush-head thinking on the part of Steve and Uri. It’s worse than that. It is WOKE in principle, as come into the Church.
3.) I’m all for judging people by the content of their character over the color of their skin and the history of the race they are from as long as we don’t ignore the reality that content of character is not absolutely isolated from color of skin. According to Steve and Uri St. Paul was in sin because he judged Cretans according to the history of their race and not merely by the content of their character.
One of the Cretans, a prophet of their own, said, “Cretans are always liars, evil beasts, lazy gluttons.” 13This testimony is true. Therefore rebuke them sternly, so that they will be sound in the faith…
Looks like St. Paul isn’t welcome in Steve and Uri’s churches because he is taking into account not only the content of their character but also the history of their race. Maybe MLK’s admonition is not quite as Biblical as Steve thought?
Steve wrote,
Right now the church I serve has no minorities attending. That is not a problem to fix, out of some white guilt. I am not virtue signaling like the leftists, as I’ve been accused of. But if the Asian or black visitors who come are made to feel awkward or excluded by things we say about this, that IS a problem.
Bret responds,
1.) Steve is virtue signaling. He doesn’t have to have minorities in his congregation to be virtue signaling. Steve is one giant glowing neon sign that says… “I love black people. I love yellow people. I love brown people.” Were I black I would find it all incredibly condescending. Another example patronizing.
2.) If minorities feel excluded by the things that I have said here than it is because, like Steve and Uri, they have been bitten by the Cultural Marxist bug.
3.) There is no problem with stating that God commands all men everywhere to repent. There is no problem with stating what Calvin said;
“Regarding our eternal salvation, it is true that one must not distinguish between man and woman, or between king and a shepherd, or between a German and a Frenchman. Regarding policy, however, we have what St. Paul declares here; for our, Lord Jesus Christ did not come to mix up nature, or to abolish what belongs to the preservation of decency and peace among us….Regarding the kingdom of God (which is spiritual) there is no distinction or difference between man and woman, servant and master, poor and rich, great and small. Nevertheless, there does have to be some order among us, and Jesus Christ did not mean to eliminate it, as some flighty and scatterbrained dreamers [believe].”
John Calvin (Sermon on 1 Corinthians 11:2-3)
I mean … please keep in mind that it was Calvin who just called Uri and Steve flighty and scatterbrained dreamers and not me.
Steve writes,
More on preferences.
Yes, as of now I prefer that my single daughter marry a nice, white, Dutch Reformed boy. The controversy isn’t over that abstract preference, but over what you will do when she brings home a black or Latino boy instead. If he’s a gangster in lifestyle, we all agree on urging her back to a Christian way of life, and leaving him. But if he’s a Clarence Thomas type, it seems we don’t agree. Maybe I’m wrong. My preference then needs to give way to God’s providence. I don’t dig in and say my preference is based in the natural order, and God forbids or at least frowns on such a union, because He set the boundaries of nations, etc. If it’s a problem that a black or Asian settles in to a white, Dutch Reformed church, or that a Moabite convert to Yahweh marries a faithful Israelite, or that a Hittite soldier becomes one of David’s mighty men, I define that as unbiblical Kinism, which should be (r)ejected from the church.
Bret responds,
1.) Pity Steve’s daughters.
2.) See John Calvin’s quote above
3.) I will end with this quote from one of the Fahters, Rev. Clarence MacCartney
“Love imagines that it can overleap the barriers of race and blood and religion, and in the enthusiasm and ecstasy of choice these obstacles appear insignificant. But the facts of experience are against such an idea. Mixed marriages are rarely happy. Observation and experiences demonstrate that the marriage of a Gentile and Jew, a Protestant and a Catholic, an American and a Foreigner has less chance of a happy result than a marriage where the man and woman are of the same race and religion….”
Dr. Clarence MacCartney – Presbyterian Minister
Wilson, Marshwiggles, & White Boy Summer
In C. S. Lewis’ book, “The Silver Chair,” there is a section where Jill, Eustace, and Prince Rilian are in a secluded room. Prince Rilian (the Black Knight) is tied to the Silver Chair so that he will not be able to fight against the Witch’s spell she has upon him and so return to the sanity of becoming again who he really is apart from the Witch’s enchantment upon him. It is the only time when his sanity returns to him and so he is tied in a silver chair until the memory passes. As the witch’s spell fades and Prince Rilian’s memory awakens he begins to implore Eustance and Jill to release him from the chair, even invoking the name of Aslan in order to do so. The witch arrives to find Puddleglum, Eustace, and Jill, fumbling with the ropes that keep the Prince restrained in the attempt to free him while the Prince himself is raging against the black arts of the witch.
The witch seeing all this begins to cast a spell upon everyone in the room in the hopes that her enchantment will end the crisis. She knows if Prince Rilian gets out of that chair she is a dead witch. The enchantment begins to work and Eustace, Jill, and Prince Rilian begin to go back to sleep, fading again as under her spell.
However Puddleglum, the brave Marshwiggle, throws himself on the fire in the room to the end that the smell of charred Marshwiggle is so nasty as to counter the Witch’s effort at re-casting the spell thus ending the beguiling of Lewis’s heroes followed by the slaying of the Witch and the escape from the underworld where they were trapped.
As I view all the troubles that Doug Wilson is having with trying to put people back to sleep on the Kinism issue this is the scenario that keeps popping into my head. Wilson is the Witch whose spell is no longer working upon sundry white boy Prince Rilians. The long despised Kinists are the Jills and Eustaces doing all they can to release the white boys from their silver chairs. The Puddleglums are anyone who has paid the price for trying to end the enchantment.
Wilson, of course, in this analogy, is the Witch. As a result of this great awakening of the Prince Rilian White Boys that is happening before him he is redoubling his efforts to put everyone back to sleep with his spells, enchantments, (and even tantrums). However, Wilson’s problem now is that he is in a room the size of Texas full of Marshwiggles and none of them are interested in letting anybody go back to their non-based dogmatic slumbers. Prince Rilian and the White Boys are going to be released.
Wilson’s spell, and the spell of the rest of the witchy leadership of Evangelicalism and the “Reformed” church has been broken and Doug himself needs to awaken to the fact that nobody is ever going back to sleep. We now know that on this issue he is the enemy. We now know that he has kept us in an Underworld that only desires to see the destruction of the Christian white man. We now know that Dougie has been keeping the Prince Rilian white boys under his spells only to serve his desired ends. We now know that on this issue (and its a big one) he is working against the will of Aslan and the Emperor across the sea.
Keep trying to cast your spells Dougie … your ability of putting people back to sleep has been ended by WHITE BOY SUMMER.
In Defense of Rightly Ordered Loves
“Nationalism has much to do with identity, but that (observation) entirely misses the main point. Nationalism is really about rightly ordering and prioritizing your loves in obedience to 1Tim. 5:8. The Christian faith harmonizes beautifully with all of this, because nations, and therefore national loyalties and duties, were initially God’s idea.”
Burl E. Farmer
The abandonment of or negation of the rightly ordering and prioritizing of our loves has to call into question if the one who abandons or negates the right ordering and prioritizing of our loves can really love God. Can it be the case that someone who diminishes a proper and Biblical love for kith and kin, tribe and people, nation and race — someone who flattens out the properly ordered concentric circles of affections — really love the God of the Bible who Himself practices the right ordering and prioritizing of His love? If God does not love everyone the same — if there is hierarchy in God’s loves — then can it be sin to have properly ordered hierarchy in our loves?
Jesus had his inner circle (Peter, James, & John). John seemed to be the favorite. Jesus cared for His mother uniquely on the Cross and not for the other women gazing on. Here we find the essence of the proper ordering of our loves.
Can we just be done with this blasphemy that somehow properly ordered loves that prioritize some loves over other loves is an offense to the God of the Bible?
What else can we call this mad drive to rid ourselves of the normativity of communities that reflect racial/ethnic harmony in favor of the destruction of communities that were heretofore built on the idea of properly ordered loves which by necessity meant communities built around the blood ties of kith and kin?
We are reminded at this point of the words of Pat Buchanan;
“Did the God of the Pentateuch strengthen the people he had created when he destroyed the unity of their language and scattered them to the four corners of the earth? To hear men endlessly recite this mindless mantra, ‘Our diversity is our strength,’ when tribal, ethnic, and religious diversity is tearing nations to pieces, is to recall Orwell: Only an intellectual could make a statement like that. No ordinary man could be such a fool.”
Ethnomasochism has instantly become a competitor to “Alienism” as the sobriquet that defines those putative theonomists and cultural Marxists who insist that diversity is our strength and deny the Augustinian idea of loves properly ordered.
As we have mentioned before there seems to be some kind of conviction among the Ethnomasochistic/Alienist “Christians” that somehow love of ones own kith and kin and the desire to have a nation consistent with that love somehow automatically means the hatred of everyone else who is not kith and kin. As we have repeatedly said, nothing can be further from the truth. Kinist Christians are not calling for some kind of “one-drop rule” investigation to determine who should and should not be part of a predominately white Christian nation. The pursuit of a core people such as was pursued by our Fathers in 1924 with the Johnson-Reed act, does not mean we hate other peoples. President Coolidge got this right when he said;
“Ethnomasochism, the taking of pleasure in the dispossession of one’s own ethnic group, is a disease of the heart…It comes out of what James Burnham called an ‘ideology of Western suicide,’ a belief system that provides a morphine drip for people who have come to accept the inevitability of their departure from history.”
If our people must depart from history let it not be said that it was the Christian church and the Christian clergy who aided and abetted and so midwifed our departure.
I would not want to be guilty of that crime on the final day.
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”.