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.

I get by with a little help from my friends — Rev. JS Lowther on Gnostic Nations

“The supposed ‘nation’ of which modern Christianity, to which group the authors of the book listed above (Torba & Isker’s ‘Christian Nationalism’) belong, is a ‘gnostical nation’ a ‘quasi-nation’.

The supposed ‘nation’ which ignores boarders of race, is no different than a gnostical religion which must ignore the boarders of doctrine and religion.

It has struck me, in the same way, that we know what a ‘brother’ really is in generative terms (2 or more male siblings of the same father and mother), and by that natural truth we then apply the concept of ‘brotherhood’ to non-natural spheres of life, albeit: military, sports or work and so on. Eventually the concept of brotherhood is estranged from the meaning of ‘brother.’ In the modern Christian sense, we have suppressed the consciousness of a natural brotherhood and nationhood from the pulpit and pen in its entirety in order to establish an idealistic quasi-spiritual brotherhood and nationhood devoid of all natural boundaries. Interestingly enough, this gnostical establishment looks no different than the world’s model of a ‘united brotherhood of man’, and for the same ends.

To the modern church a brotherhood and nationhood of non-natural relativity has become the primary meaning of the words ‘brother’ and ‘nation’ , though the fact remains that without the former natural meaning, which we all know, there is no basis to rest the later meaning upon.

Thus, the meaning of ‘brother’ and ‘brotherhood’, ‘nation and nationhood’ becomes in need of mental maintenance from an external force, the terms are now in our consciences a sociological struggle between the quasi meaning and the nature meaning; This struggle of definition and identification will be maintained by a tyranny, they will oppress in order to impose an illegitimate definition upon our minds and emotions, pummeling our conscience into submission- because it rebels against the falsehood of the claim by nature.

A ‘Christian nation’, without natural ethnic and racial cohesion will be a tyranny; and such a tyranny will push for amalgamation as a means to form a hybrid ‘nation’ in order to bring the natural in conformity to the quasi.”

Examining Michigan’s Proposal 3 On Abortion — Part I

This election cycle Michigan voters will be voting on whether to be a state that allows the torture and murder of the judicially innocent or whether Michigan will end the scourge that is abortion.

The scales in this state are already tipped in the favor of the baby murderers as the proposed bill was seemingly turned over to Mephistopheles to write the language of what is being proposed. Plus, we here in Michigan have already had Michigan Supreme Court Justice Bernstein stating publicly that;

“Ultimately, it is the Michigan Supreme Court that will make the absolute final determination, it will be the Michigan Supreme Court that will have the final word, in a woman’s right to choose in the state of Michigan…”

Please understand dear reader what is being said here. Michigan voters could resoundingly turn down proposal 3 and it will make no difference because “ultimately it is the Michigan Supreme Court that will make the absolute final determination.” If the baby murderers are defeated at the ballot box they will just run to the courts to force infanticide on the whole state.

Be that as it may, I thought it would be good to give a series looking at how bad proposal 3 really is. We will break this down little by little.

Article 1, Section 28 Right to Reproductive Freedom

(1) Every individual has a fundamental right to reproductive freedom,

Bret responds,

I am just curious as to where this fundamental right to reproductive freedom comes from? Who has granted us this right? Where can I look it up to find the details? This is the “Who says so” question. I mean if this whole proposal is premised on the idea of a “fundamental right to reproductive freedom” it ought not to be too much to ask where in the hell this right comes from. I’d prefer to see it in writing if it is not too much trouble. Keep in mind also, that the SCOTUS ruled in Buck vs. Bell decades ago that every individual does not have a fundamental right to reproductive freedom.

Secondly, here allow me to not how amusing it is to be talking about “reproductive freedom” when in fact what is being advocated is the erasure or reproductivity. I mean, this is an abortion proposal after all. So, are we really talking about freedom of reproductivity or are we talking about the freedom to not reproduce — to kill our offspring?

(2) which entails the right to make and effectuate decisions about all matters relating to pregnancy, including but not limited to prenatal care, childbirth, postpartum care, contraception, sterilization, abortion care, miscarriage management, and infertility care.

Here we find a new, unlimited constitutional right inasmuch as we are using the language “all matters relating to pregnancy.”

All matters relating to pregnancy? Now, I don’t want to get to pedantic but as newborns could be said to be a matter relating to pregnancy does this language allow Mommies to kill their babies after they are born since the birthed child remains a matter relating to pregnancy?

Now, don’t you respond with “that’s obvious.” It’s obvious to me that killing in utero children deserves the death penalty for those who practice such heinousness. As such, nothing is “obvious” to me.

We would note that by creating a right “to all matters relating to pregnancy,” abortion, sterilizations, and a myriad of other matters (like sex) can have zero restrictions. Since sex is still related to pregnancy the language of this proposal could make any number of current sexual crimes open to legality. All a defendant (rapist?) would have to say is that “Hey, all matters related to pregnancy are my rights under the amendment of reproductive freedom”

It used to be Called Freedom of Association

“We would all agree that the traveler is and should be free not to buy. He can pass a motel he doesn’t like in town, if he doesn’t like the color, or he doesn’t like the name. He can stop and go in and when he sees the owner he can decide he doesn’t like him because he doesn’t like his mustache, or his accent, or his prices, or his race, or his customers. He can turn around and walk out for any reason, or for no reason at all. Why not? He’s a free man. So is the owner of the property. And if the traveler is free not to buy because he doesn’t like the owner’s mustache, accent, prices, race, other customers, or for any or no reason, the owner of the property ought to have the same freedom. That’s simple justice. The wonder is that it can be questioned.”

C. Farris Bryant
Florida Governor — 1961-1965

This is the argument for Freedom of Association that Americans no longer embrace. It is the simplest of logic and yet Freedom of Association is now seen as “bigoted.”