There’s a long and ridiculous story of guilt by association that formed over the Thanksgiving weekend, the short version of which is that Rod Dreher, Alastair Roberts, and a few other gay nerds got a good man, Thomas Achord, fired from his job because they accused him of edgy tweets that would corrupt the youth rather than supply them with dank memes. And the amazing reason for this effort was to tarnish the reputation of Achord’s friend Stephen Wolfe, whose wonderful new book, The Case for Christian Nationalism, was reviewed here recently.
The disgusting schoolgirl gossip has had a devastating effect on Achord’s life, and those who are responsible will answer for what they have done. But thank God, an amazing and praiseworthy thing has happened since the witch hunt began. In what can only be called a protest against what the attack mob has done to the Achord family, donations to the Achord support fund are growing fast. The designs of these evil men have visibly backfired, and it’s a joy to watch this unfold in real time. For all of Rod Dreher’s menstrual agony over the school community being torn apart, blah blah blah, the reality is that while men care deeply about the profound issues being fought over, the best way to make women your sworn enemy is to place families at needless risk. These people at the school and in the area know Thomas as a good man, a good friend, and a good teacher, and they have only love for him. Their hatred is for the witch hunters. And so the donations grow.
This post is not a response to the dull minutiae of that witch hunt, but rather focuses on what Dreher has published in The American Conservative regarding the matter. The first part of his article, focused on Achord, is weak sauce that will likely cause your testicles to shrink if you read it. If you don’t believe me, read the comments under the article, which are even stupider than you might guess. The second part (the “update,” which begins with mention of the excellent Dow/Achord book, Who is My Neighbor?) is fascinating for the reasons given for the homo-inquisition.
In a magazine called The American Conservative, mind you, Rod writes that “questions of nation and community” are legitimate, but not if “racist beliefs are being smuggled.” This is hilarious, because our fathers, who gave us our nation and community, were fundamentally Kinist on all racial matters. How could anyone deny this? As usual, the Marxist word “racism” goes undefined, but simply refer to the opinions of your own grandfathers, if you’re confused about what qualifies. See the congressional acts of 1790 and 1795 in restricting immigration to free whites only, if you’re curious about the “racist” foundations of American government.
Rod then goes into a discussion of how post-Christian secular liberalism, Marxism, and capitalism dissolve “thick communities” and religious, cultural, and national traditions. (What makes a community thick goes unmentioned.) He recognizes that where he lives, Hungarians “prefer to keep their own settled way of life” and are “standing up for themselves and their people’s traditions,” unlike “Lily-white Sweden,” which foolishly “opened its borders to large numbers of Third World refugees, and now has a major crime problem centered in those communities,” because Swedes believed the “multiculturalist lie that human beings are blank slates who can be molded easily into accepting a progressive way of life.” Ah, but Rod warns: “The problem is not black or brown people per se; it’s these people as bearers of radically different cultures – cultures that do not easily mix with the settled culture of the locals.” In other words, Rod hasn’t been able to find a way to detach “black or brown” people from the degenerative culture that accompanies them, as their numbers climb, and the white population declines, in the West. But I’m sure there’s a recipe on a college bookshelf somewhere for getting races to change the distinctive cultures they invariably produce. And since we’re told that nations are now propositional rather than of blood and soil, Rod is hoping for a way to convince the blacks and browns to build something like Budapest, so that professional thinkers won’t have to divorce their wives and abandon their children and escape to “lily-white” enclaves, as he has done.
He recognizes that the “classical liberal” desire to free the individual from “unchosen obligations to community, place, family, or even, as of late, biology, goes deeply against human nature and flourishing.” And he sees that the “Left” judges people “only as bearers of group identity.” His Judeo-conservative solution, which he promotes as moderate, is to adopt cultural Marxist propaganda, ignore all racial realities, and focus solely on “content of character,” even though no one has ever been able to do this, least of all the “civil rights” pimps who preached it as the central tenet of their gibsmedat creed.
He echoes the comments of Marko Attila Hoare, who warns that America is at the same crossroads faced by post-Communist Yugoslavia. Remember that Yugoslavia was an artificial Soviet monstrosity that was never going to survive the free determination of the peoples who were forced into it. But rather than accept the obvious fact that what Rod calls an “ethnically diverse population” was detrimental to the peace and security of the constituent nations, the lesson he draws is that nationalists were to blame for “emphasis[ing] ethnic differences, undermin[ing] the common Yugoslav narrative and play[ing] upon historical grievances.” Rod doesn’t exactly deny that Serbs had valid grievances over their treatment by Croats and Bosnian and Albanian Muslims, “and, before that, at the hands of Muslim Ottoman occupiers.” He just believes that these religiously and ethnically opposed peoples should have found a common sense of identity in their “struggle against the Nazis and other foreign occupiers in World War II.” And there you have it. It’s obvious whose “narrative” is being promoted here, and it’s not those who proclaim Jesus as Lord. There’s no identity to be found in a common negative, and there never has been, but whites are so deracinated today that simps like Rod think this is normal. When Serbs erased “traces of the hated Ottoman imperial past,” Rod dismisses it as the attempt “to reforge the land according to their extremist vision of purity.”
What he expects for America is no different. If whites are oppressed and want the peace and security found in the homogeneity and familiarity that we enjoyed for most of our history, this is not allowed. We are only allowed to find our identity in the military, or what benefits Jews, or in being taxpayers, or in football teams, or in Hollywood filth. Our national identity must now be built “on the Declaration of Independence, Constitution, defeat of the Confederacy, victory in World War II and ultimately incorporating Martin Luther King and the civil rights movement…”
We Kinists utterly reject this Communist imperialism. We didn’t come through the fires of religious persecution, cast off the shackles of a tyrant, forge a new civilization on this continent, and ventilate 300,000 Yankee invaders with Southern steel to allow anti-Christs to hijack the government and purposely flood us with strangers for the purpose of decimating our population and making us forget our past so that we are powerless to prevent the future that they have in store for us.
But you can understand how easy it is for the average person to be alienated from the truth and ignorant of their own heritage. When liars like Rod tell them that the war that the “woke” are waging against Thanksgiving, Columbus Day, and statues of our ancestors is the same as an “identity politics” that emphasizes “supposedly inherent, immutable racial identities” that reduce “American history to the history of colonialism, slavery, white supremacy and imperialism,” the average man will believe that to prevent the woke war against all that we revere, we should renounce our racial and religious self-interest (which is the protection of our vulnerable families) lest we be accused by various Christ-killers of “white supremacy.” And this, unfortunately, is how you arrive at Tucker Carlson.
Theirs is a secular, leveling uniformity that has never actually unified anyone. It finds its expression only in what it opposes, not in what it defends. It views its own past only through the eyes of its enemies. It defines unity as that which must never divide, and virtue as unimpeded tolerance.
Thus, Rod concludes that “White nationalism, à la Achord, is part of the backlash,” where the backlash is defined as what fills the vacuum created by encouraging racial identities, noticing differences, and dividing Americans by reopening old interracial wounds. Cucks like Rod never fail to place blame for “division” on those who are reacting to outrages committed against them. For instance, whites are never allowed to feel abused and seek redress for 3% of the population (young black men) committing 60% of all violent crime. The cuckservative’s solution to division is to blame white men, and only white men, for being fed up with the conditions that have been forced upon them, conditions that they never voted to accept. These are the enemies that Rod and his ilk define as “white nationalists.”
Rod Dreher is a coward who will be forgotten, whose life will amount to nothing, while men like Thomas Achord who refuse to allow our people to perish will be remembered as heroes.
To be clear, Rod is not blind and stupid. He sees what is actually happening to his own people. But he can only cower. When he writes that “the Democratic Party,” through its control of “the media, academia, law, medicine, and the commanding heights of the economy” are “discriminating openly against white people,” he’s going to avoid at all costs mentioning the names of the people in control of such things, because it’s his job to denounce others as anti-Semitic, not to himself suffer the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune, or to take arms against a sea of troubles, and by opposing, end them. Oh no, my friends. Rod Dreher is not your man, if you’re looking for a man.
No one can deny that whites are being discriminated against. “Wherever you see ‘Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion’ promoted,” Rod writes, “there you see leftist-approved racial discrimination against whites (and, increasingly, against Asians).”
Rather than joining us in making an effective stand against the evil men who are displacing us, Rod views us as the enemy. This is why he and Alastair Roberts spent the entire Thanksgiving weekend motivated to destroy their superiors, using the excuse that they are protecting impressionable children. What they have actually done is cut children off from what they need most in life, the godly influence of real men.
The recent exchange between pastors Doug Wilson and Bret McAtee on the subject of Kinism is enlightening, not only because McAtee gets right to the point that grousing over name-calling is so 2005 in light of the escalated white genocide that has followed in the wake of the Great Awokening that began about ten years ago, but also because Wilson now appears to be willing to engage his Kinist opponents, to a point, rather than caricature them. There has been a tiresome history of double standards by which Wilson can lob endless pejoratives and ad hominem against Kinists (who are only white, in his estimation), but heaven forfend if a Kinist uses a word that is off-limits to a white man as shorthand for rapists, thieves, and other trash without quickly repenting by making a sizable donation to BLM’s affordable housing fund.
Every Kinist believes that we are saved by grace, not race. We simply deny that race is a phantom, as has unfortunately become the evangelical consensus. McAtee correctly observes that Alienists and Gnostics like Wilson expect grace to overthrow nature, which is one of the most anti-biblical and unrealistic concepts imaginable. This reduces culture, for the Alienist, to a propositional fantasy to accompany his propositional view of nationality. McAtee is correct that grace restores rather than overthrows nature.
As soon as the prevalence of, and differences in, ethnonational and racial sins are noticed, Wilson calls it “mock[ing] the color of a man’s skin,” “snarling and biting,” “taunt[ing] the handiwork of God in others,” “detest[ing] the image of God,” “hostility to the creational work of God,” and “racial animosity,” as you see in McAtee’s review of Wilson’s anti-Kinist book, Skin & Blood.
Wilson is certain that race doesn’t exist, and if it did exist, the differences among us would be the result of “worshipping pathetic gods…not the end result of the triune God’s decision to make some of us white and some of us black.” This is the cartoonish view of race as mere pigmentation, as though it’s a thyroid disorder rather than millennia of God’s diligence in dividing and purposely cultivating mankind for his own glory.
Affluent white American boomer pastors like Wilson invariably think that evangelism will ultimately recreate every person in the world in the image of the affluent white American boomer pastor, and so he finds it impossible to conceive that pluriformity has divine intention and purpose.
The Kinist, you see, is guilty of The Sin of Noticing. His “racism” is pattern recognition, and for this he must be judged by men like Wilson, who opposes his own ancestors on racial matters but is in lockstep with all contemporary paragons of piety, including Elton John, Klaus Schwab, George Floyd, that mushroom-headed woman who lies for Biden, and countless others who are allowed to be invited to public gatherings. Yes, this is what passes for gospel ministry these days, along with proudly supporting the empire’s latest lend-lease scheme and calling it “conservatism.” Wilson is the clerical equivalent of the pit bull hoarder who scoffs at statistics: “They’ve never eaten one of my children’s faces.”
Little Geneva once observed that Doug Wilson and the perverted writer Henry Miller are in full agreement about the propriety of miscegenation. They just disagree on the means to the end. Miller said that if humanity were to adopt his program of hedonism and debauchery, in 200 years there would no longer be any races, and people would scarcely know whether they were male or female.
Kinists and Commies
In Wilson’s reply to McAtee, he hints at why his longstanding fear of engaging with Kinists has subsided, namely that a faithful Christian who is not condemned as a racist these days needs to reassess his commitment to the truth. He even affirms that he “would really like to see us all retire the word racism.” Keep in mind that this is Wilson partly conceding that Kinists were right all along. We’re not the ones who have changed. We warned long ago that this is exactly what would happen, that all faithful Christians would soon be called “racists,” because the word “racist” began its life as Communist, anti-white propaganda. We warned that white posers would use it as a weapon as long as it earned them social credit, and that this would not last for long, because the weapon would be turned against them too. Now that even breathing while white has become “racist,” posers like Wilson have tired of the catch-all term. Now he knows that “kinism is looking more and more like a responsible option to more and more conservative Christians,” and he must appoint himself as gatekeeper, similar to how he appointed himself over his church when defrocked by his own Baptist elders. He wants to convince you that Kinism, the love that our righteous ancestors had for their own people and posterity, is everything that the Communists hoped that their term “racism” would become.
In response to Adi Schlebusch’s truthful statement that Kinists were Christian Nationalists decades before Christian Nationalism was cool, Wilson writes: “you will immediately see the pressing need we have to disambiguate.” It’s his laughable opinion that Christian Nationalism would have caught the wind sooner had not Kinists been spreading their racist germs around the nationalist dance hall and sending everyone home sick. He calls us “a dog in the manger.” But in the last 20 years, since Wilson has been aware that a band of brothers who call themselves Kinists proudly agree with his own grandparents, quite a lot has changed, not on the Kinist side but in Wilson’s own frame of reference for the political center. We Kinists have been making accurate predictions for the outcome of every major event that has occurred since 9/11, because we can read the racial and religious signs of the times. We – and I mean every Kinist I know – has clearly seen the outcome of the Judaic-American empire’s race-based fiscal, domestic, and foreign policies. What has Wilson been doing during this time? Supporting John McCain and the rest of the Republican lickspittles, which did exactly nothing to prevent the Great Awokening and the demonization of our people – of Wilson’s own people. Yet he wants you to trust his theory on how successful Christian Nationalism could have been had it not been for Kinists.
Wilson claims Kinism only appears more reasonable today because “the commies despise whiteness far more than the kinists love it.” Keep in mind, when he refers to “whiteness,” he means white people; men, women, and children who have been tarred as not worthy of survival by the occupied media. They’ve seen their country and their future stolen from them. They’ve seen statues to their heroes pulled down. They’ve seen their authority undermined at every turn. They’ve been told that they owe their inheritance to strangers whom they never wronged. They’ve been told that they aren’t worthy of being heard or seen, and they should accept their dispossession and exit the stage of history as quickly and quietly as possible. Yes, the commies hate them, and we love them. Wilson could have joined us long ago in the brotherly love by which we as Christians are known, but he craves the respect of his masters.
Wilson divulges that his understanding of natural affection is rather superficial and recent. “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.” This is absurd. It’s like denying that clans exist because families exist. Everyone who lives in the real world is well aware of how the world works.
Wilson paints this vivid picture of how he views his struggle: “I am in a pitched battle with the commies, and I don’t much care what color the commies are. Here we are, defending our cultural Helm’s Deep, and the next wave of orcs comes swarming up the walls. And then suddenly, down our rampart a little bit, I hear the cry raised by the kinists. ‘Just shoot at the darker ones!’ I would suggest mildly, and with just a hint of exasperation, that somebody doesn’t understand what the hell is going on.” The one who doesn’t know what the hell is going on is Wilson. In all the millions of words written by Kinists, the greatest share of it is a detailed appraisal of the failures of the white race, the sins into which we have fallen, and the need for our people to return to the Lord and their roots. This, by the way, is why the charge of “white supremacism” is a running joke among us. The part that sticks in Wilson’s craw is our denial that people are interchangeable cogs in the machine of humanity, that cultural differences are strictly religious, and that we have no right to determine our own future exclusive of others. Just as God separated and distinguished the tribes of Jacob, we will claim again a name and place among the nations of the world, and the Gnostics and neo-Babelists will not stop us.
Contrary to Wilson’s cringe-Tolkien analogy, we Kinists believe that the greatest enemies in our midst are traitors. We would be far more likely to shoot the light-skinned orcs with purple hair and “love is love” tattoos and “no human is illegal” t-shirts. But the most comical part of Wilson’s vignette is that he actually thinks he’s defending ground against Communists. If, like a good racist, I may quote my friend Sun Tzu: “If you know the enemy and know yourself, you need not fear the result of a hundred battles. If you know yourself but not the enemy, for every victory gained you will also suffer a defeat. If you know neither the enemy nor yourself, you will succumb in every battle.” Wilson is painfully ignorant of who the commies are, the power they hold over him, and what has been their consistent plan for more than a century. He refuses to name them. He supports them unwittingly. He thinks those who actually gained ground against them were evil, because that’s what the enemies of Jesus Christ told him to believe. He uses the language they invented, and only now that he’s tired of it being used against him does he want to retire the word “racism.” In keeping with Wilson’s analogy, this is the equivalent of Lizzo farting into the Horn of Helm Hammerhand as the doors to the keep are thrown open, and Wilson, Glenn Beck, and Jordan Peterson ride out on ponies, into the maw of Reckless Hate, armed only with plastic lightsabers. And this theater of the absurd would still be more effective than what Wilson has actually accomplished against the commies.
I mean, just read this: “Various minorities, pigmented and otherwise, have in fact been co-opted by forces of great evil in the world. That is true. But their program is not really genocidal. What is the color of the co-opters? It would be better to describe all this as suicidal… But who co-opted these minorities in the first place? Who enlisted them to do this awful thing? Who is using them as a cat’s paw? White people, that’s who.” Hey man, cool it with the anti-Semitism! He goes on to say that it “was whiteness itself that pulled the trigger” and killed itself, not “aggrieved minorities,” who “are being used as the instrument.”
At a time when anti-racism is the secular religion, you can tune in to MSNBC and watch as hosts like Joy Reid and Tiffany Cross openly declare the very existence of white people to be a threat to black survival. Tucker Carlson calls MSNBC “Hutu Radio” and wonders why the “mostly white people” on the board of Comcast, which owns MSNBC, allow this blatant racial hatred. The anti-Christs know their enemy. Carlson does not, because the “mostly white people” on the board of Comcast, including its chairman, are actually Jews.
You’ll see throughout this response that Wilson makes a claim – that race does not exist – and then uses the reality of race in his arguments, similar to how atheists try to stand on God’s lap to slap him in the face. Davis Carlton makes the same point here, in his exasperation towards Wilson. While Wilson sees blacks used as the pawns of “white supremacists,” Kinists see the envy, hatred, and resentment that blacks have towards whites (as Wilson admits below) as being stoked and manipulated primarily by Jews, who have been at the vanguard of every anti-white and anti-Christian revolutionary movement, and no conspiracy by them is presumed, because they always work in concert for their own interests and against that of their white, Christian hosts. It’s what Winston Churchill recognized as a “world-wide conspiracy [by Jews] for the overthrow of civilisation and for the reconstitution of society on the basis of arrested development, of envious malevolence, and impossible equality.”
As Carlton points out, Wilson gives himself permission to recognize that whites are collectively alienating themselves from God, and that this is happening throughout the race that he says doesn’t exist. Of course, we agree that whites are doing this; this has always been our lament. And contrary to the “white supremacism” of which we are accused, we have affirmed that our race will perish from the earth unless we repent. But while Wilson recognizes collective treason among whites, he recoils at noticing the same racial coordination among Jews, who, as Carlton writes, “play a disproportionate role in the destruction of Western Civilization and the white race via the Great Replacement.” Wilson believes the pattern recognition that he reserves for whites is “not cricket,” as the Brits would say, when applied to the ancient enemy of Christendom. (See the link that Carlton provides, where McAtee criticizes Wilson for claiming that “anti-Semitism” is the “cackle of envy” from Christians, as though no proof exists for the aforementioned malevolence and our reasoned opposition to it, but rather, we oppose them because we covet what is theirs!)
In short, while Wilson denies that race exists, he can’t help but use terms like “whiteness” or refer to white people generally in a way that clearly indicates that race is as intuitive for him as it is for everyone else.
Race Bad, Ethnicity Good
The fashionable difference that Alienists force between ethnicity (good) and race (bad) is utter nonsense. Wilson claims that race is an unbiblical concept, but the lack of racial interaction recorded in the Bible is hardly the point. The point is that God designed the separation of tribes within his covenanted nation, and as Acts 17:27 makes clear, he has determined allotted time periods and geographical boundaries so that men may seek and find him, because we’re equipped to live only at a familiar scale. Absolutely none of this was a mystery to our fathers, but in this age of mass retardation, it’s like trying to explain differential equations.
The biblical references to nations as ethnicities but also collectively as “Gentiles” prove the point. Even the word “Canaanite” functions as a racial category, composed of various ethnicities. It can refer to the particular people of Canaan, as in Joshua 11:3, or more broadly to all the inhabitants of the land, including the Hivites, Girgashites, Jebusites, Amorites, Hittites, and Perizzites, as in Judges 1:9-10. And dealing with the Canaanites collectively was easily understood by the Israelites. As Carlton adds, “We have hints at our notion of race in passages that subdivide mankind into ‘kindreds of nations’ (Ps. 22:27) and ‘families of nations’ (Ps. 96:7, cf. 1 Chr. 16:28).” It’s tedious to rehash such elementary principles, and wouldn’t be necessary if there were more pastors who were not willfully obtuse, denying what has been plainly obvious for all of human history, to retain their tax exemptions.
It’s frustrating to decipher Wilson’s Gnostic framework, but Adi Schlebusch does it very well here. See this prime exhibit for Wilson’s confusion:
So while it is true that I believe that there are not differences in races of men, there are different tribes. The nations of men (ethnoi) are recognized as a thing in Scripture, while races are not.
A moment ago I mentioned the apostles of all this woke supremacy, and some on the right have recently made a big deal out of the fact that the initial leaders of the Frankfurt School were pesky Jews, which is true enough. But in that cocktail mix of intersectional villainy, as we reflect on the lives of Max Horkheimer, Theodor Adorno, Herbert Marcuse, Leo Löwenthal and Friedrich Pollock, we must needs mention all the ingredients—while not forgetting that they were Jews, certainly. But they were also white. And German. And European. And male. There were no Pacific Islanders, people! Where was the requisite brownness? I simply raise the question. Is it possible that the emphasis on the evils of white supremacy has all along been a white supremacist trick? Perhaps this was the patriarchy that needed smashing. I mean, look at them. A row of dead, white Europeans, followed by crowds of adoring leftist females.
In the meantime, those on the right who are being suckered into a crude antisemitism are proving themselves to be chumps of the first order… They agree there is an antithesis between good and evil, but they want to make it racial, or tribal, or ethnic, or national—which is why it is so easy to project nefarious purposes to others simply because of something like ethnicity.
The Frankfurt School of sociology was designed with the express purpose of converting racial “research” into propaganda, and promoting multiculturalism and Third World immigration. This was a movement of, by, and for Jews, yet Wilson sees only white men, while denying that “white” means anything, except where blame is owed, and then suddenly race exists again.
The Authoritarian Personality, written by Adorno in 1950, and funded by the American Jewish Committee, was part of a series called Studies in Prejudice. Its purpose was to equate every group affiliation (except that of Jews for their own people) as mental illness. Dr. Kevin MacDonald writes: “Certainly many of the central attitudes of the largely successful 1960s countercultural revolution find expression in The Authoritarian Personality, including idealizing rebellion against parents, low-investment sexual relationships, and scorn for upward social mobility, social status, family pride, the Christian religion, and patriotism… The ideology that ethnocentrism was a form of psychopathology was promulgated by a group that over its long history had arguably been the most ethnocentric group among all the cultures of the world.”
The Jews of the Frankfurt School were Marxists who realized that class struggle was not going to be enough to bring about revolution in the West. They knew that Trotsky’s word “racism” had potential to pit non-whites against whites, but they knew they needed a cultural Marxism that would attack Christianity and the family, removing all intermediate protections between the individual and the state. They called this “critical theory,” and it was so successful that today we see the advance of “critical race theory” and the demonization of the white race.
As long as evangelicals at large remain anti-Kinist, which is to say, as long as they reject what their own Christian fathers believed and practiced, nothing will block the runaway train of “wokeness.” When R.C. Sproul’s Ligonier Ministries assessed critical theory last year, not a word was said about it being a fundamentally Jewish revolutionary movement at war with Jesus Christ and his historical standard-bearers, the white race. Instead, writer Eric Watkins, apparently reading from a script borrowed from an Ivy League humanities professor, said the Frankfurt School “sought liberation for the oppressed through philosophical reflection on power structures and how change comes about”! He goes on to quote Neil Shenvi’s agreements with critical theory, which “isn’t surprising, since ‘all truth is God’s truth’”! What harmony is there, you ask, between Christ and Satan? It is “‘that race—as it has been defined historically and legally—is a social construct and not a concept legitimately rooted in human nature or human biology.’ The Bible recognizes only one race—the human race. While we might distinguish between ethnicities, it is a misnomer to distinguish between races. If critical theory’s view of humanity stopped there, it would be easier to find more with which we could agree.” The only problem they find with it is that it’s wedded to postmodernism, and this is what has “birthed new terms such as ‘whiteness,’ ‘white privilege,’ and ‘white fragility’ and has ultimately led to an entirely secular reconstruction of the way in which conversations about racism are now being framed.” Watkins’s expressed goal is the “colorblind, post-racial humanity,” the “world beyond racism” that MLK envisioned, which is why MLK “self-consciously distanced himself from the violent instigations of Marxism.”
It’s mind-boggling that a man who calls himself a Christian could expect anyone to believe a word he says when he writes such obvious lies. MLK’s handler, Stanley Levison, was a Jew who was the major financial coordinator for the Communist Party USA. The CPUSA recognized both that King was one of their own and that he dared not espouse Communism publicly.
In other words – and this really helps to understand the indoctrinated mindset of an impastor like Wilson – the boomer evangelical is completely ignorant of where the battle is being waged. He doesn’t know his enemy, and he doesn’t know the weapons of war that are being used against him. As Chesterton wrote, he doesn’t even know his own philosophy, only his own phraseology. This pathetic creature has only the faintest connection to his noble sires, who actually built civilization rather than watched it burn.
Our American ancestors were so cognizant of the common European heritage needed for the harmony of the country that they limited citizenship to free whites in 1790 and 1795. They would have laughed at the suggestion that there is only one race, the human race. They were all farmers who would have laughed just as hard at the idea that there is only one breed, the animal breed. They would have questioned the sanity of anyone who believed race to be “a social construct and not a concept legitimately rooted in human nature or human biology.” What changed between then and now is the point of this entire article. Christians deserve an explanation from their leaders as to why Christianity from time immemorial to the recent past is no longer acceptable.
It won’t come from writers like Watkins, who knows that he won’t be challenged, except by us Kinists, when he evades all accountability for his racial views being indistinguishable from those of Marxists, and completely out of phase from those of our Christian fathers. He writes:
“The church is thus a colony of heaven. It is where the faithful are gathered from every nation, tribe, and tongue and the earthly things that divide (race, gender, and class) are set aside as our identity and unity are ultimately found in Christ (Col. 3:11).”
See Vox Day’s comments on this. It’s a common trick to use Col. 3:11 rather than Gal. 3:28 to promote miscegenation and race-mixing, because the latter includes the phrase “there is neither male nor female,” which would clue the reader in to the fact that grace transcends natural affections and roles but never subverts them. Or as Thomas Aquinas put it, “Gratia non tollit naturam, sed perficit”: grace does not destroy nature but perfects it.
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
Scripture unanimously contradicts the assertion by Watkins that racial and sexual identities and divisions are “set aside” in Christ. If sexual identity should be “set aside” in the same way that Watkins expects racial identity to be “set aside,” there would be no defense against the transsexual movement or any other form of faggotry. And this is precisely what explains the impotence of Christian churches in defending and instituting God’s eternal law and recovering his stolen property.
Rest assured that atheists know the weaknesses in the neo-Babelist armor. See Doug Wilson’s comments here (at 3:50) on sexual inequality. He is correct that men are going to dominate, and he’s correct that the wife is the crown of her husband, but these are mere flourish and fancy as he dances around the question posed to him, ultimately lying by stating that “submission does not equal inequality.” Of course it does, both biblically and in how the world views it, which is what fuels the hatred behind the question. This is why Q126 in the Westminster Larger Catechism tells us that the general scope of the Fifth Commandment is “the performance of those duties which we mutually owe in our several relations, as inferiors, superiors or equals.” Someone with a little Bible learnin’ should have informed the Westminster Divines that we’re all equal now.
Wilson dances almost as well as Israelis.
A Long History of Perfidy
Consider the history of Tenth Presbyterian Church in Philadelphia. This church was led by Donald Barnhouse in the 1950s. At that time, when average Christians, even in the North, even in the inner cities, leaned to the right by all current measures, Barnhouse was a Communist sympathizer. He placed Mao Tse-tung on the cover of his Eternity magazine in 1958. To Barnhouse, Reds were “reformers” and “freedom” fighters; Franco was a “dictator” and a “ruthless murderer” for executing terrorists; South African apartheid was a “devilish and foolish policy”; but his personal friend, the brutal Communist dictator of Ghana, was “a committed Christian.” And of course, like Ligonier Ministries, Barnhouse endorsed his fellow Communist, MLK.
Barnhouse died in 1960 and was succeeded by Mariano Di Gangi, who opened the church and session to blacks. The next pastor was James Montgomery Boice, who in his time made every effort to continue tying the noose of multiracialism. While other Presbyterians have been ethnically cleansed from Philly, Tenth Presbyterian remains, because with their endowment they can afford to spend more on private security.
Last year, the church released a statement condemning “racism” – a de rigueur practice for white churches in The Current Year. In this document, a “racist” is defined as one who “distinguishes or values one race over other races,” and is one who is guilty of “partiality.” It’s never explained in these serial “racism” statements how we can be allowed to distinguish one family from another or value our own more highly, according to 1 Timothy 5:8, without being guilty of sin. What’s next on the agenda of inclusivity, Anabaptist-style wife-swapping? Just as “racism” is a term of recent Communist origin, partiality has quite a different meaning in holy Scripture than it does today. In 2 Corinthians 5:16, it refers to the weight given to flesh in spiritual matters. For instance, degrees of physical separation from the Messiah were irrelevant in the first century. In James 2:9, it is unfair favoritism which interferes with the administration of justice. In Deuteronomy, it is akin to taking a bribe. Impartiality as universal equality is foreign to Scripture. This change in meaning is considered by globalists to be progression from lower to higher morality, but it is precisely what causes the scope of justice and the biblical concept of impartiality to be lost. As the church has adopted humanism and Marxism and is alienated from God’s law, without even the desire to enforce what God commands (more on this below as Christian Nationalism is discussed), the demands for “justice” as equality of condition, especially from blacks, grow ever shriller.
Also last year, the Orthodox Presbyterian Church released an article by David VanDrunen that is in agreement with the Alienist, Gnostic view of race held by Wilson and other grifters. It contains this humdinger: “Perhaps the most important thing to say about race, in the typical American sense of the word, is that it does not exist. Unlike sex, it has no biological reality, and unlike ethnicity, it has no cultural reality.” I’m pretty sure they would never say that Jews do not exist but anti-Semitism does, but let’s leave that for another day. Race, says VanDrunen, “is a figment of the human imagination. One way to put it is that race is a social construct.”
This idea being promoted by the 21st-century Church of Neo-Babelism, that race is imaginary and culture is purely environmental, doesn’t come from the Bible or science or anything that was believed in recorded history. It’s barely over a hundred years old, and it comes from Jew Franz Boas, who is considered the father of modern anthropology. Boas said race doesn’t exist but culture does, and culture is entirely acquired from one’s environment, affecting even the shape of skulls. In 1942, his student, Jew Ashley Montagu (born Israel Ehrenberg), claimed that there is no speciation in mankind, but (hey, baby) women are naturally superior to men (sleepy-eye wink).
The church of Jesus Christ has marinated in such evil Jewish ideas for generations now. Therefore, VanDrunen, writing to conservative Presbyterians, has to switch the intuitive word race with the clumsy term “racial categorization,” because he knows that race can’t really be treated as a “figment of the human imagination.” No one can do that. He can try to remain on the fence, like Wilson, but inevitably he has to choose a side, and not surprisingly, it’s against his own race. Thus, VanDrunen rebukes “the European-American, for example, who relates a funny incident at the grocery store and describes one of the people involved as an ‘Asian guy,’ although it has no bearing on the story. Perhaps she intends nothing malicious, but she perpetuates racial thought-patterns that have wrought profound harm.” You can imagine the vibes emanating with squiggly lines from the figments. Actually, don’t imagine any such thing, you racist! And he warns, “an African-American who says ‘black is beautiful’ and a European-American who says ‘white is beautiful’ make formally identical statements. But in the context of American history, they obviously do not communicate the same thing.” Look it up in the chapter on double standards in the OPC Book of Church Order. Beings of the white racial categorization should shut up and listen to beings of the black racial categorization, he says: “A family of one racial categorization begins to worship and fellowship at a church consisting primarily of people of another racial categorization. Everyone is happy for a while, except that this family finds the worship persistently unfamiliar and the fellowship awkward, for a host of cultural reasons that baffle and frustrate all involved.” And after some cultures are two hours into the “worship” service, nothing is more unfamiliar and awkward than the juke-joint smell.
VanDrunen even claims that “Western Africans are more closely related genetically to Western Europeans than to Eastern Africans,” which he pulled from what is predictably identified as a “recent study.” The fact is that African haplogroups deviate widely from the rest of the human population. But these people are so far afield on Scripture that it’s not surprising they would try to turn science on its head too.
Home, Home on the Kibbutz
Wilson recollects: “If I were to publish a little something in defense of Western culture, say, somebody was sure to show up with an intense desire to talk about the Jooooozzzss. So if kinists want us to believe that as a group they are not snarling and biting any more, they need to select a better set of ambassadors.” Misspelling the word “Jews” like this is a malicious way to trivialize an existential threat, and to lampoon anyone as a wild-eyed fanatic who recognizes that Jews are a powerful group with interests of their own that oppose the interests of white Christians. Here’s another example.
The “snarling and biting” routine conjures the memory of how Ezra Pound was arrested for treason, confined in an iron cage with a light shining on him day and night, and then dismissed as insane (but never released) when he objected to our entry to WWII as an unconstitutional conspiracy between FDR and Jewish bankers. This is what explains the fear and ignorance of clown-car Christians like Wilson, who is afraid that he’ll no longer be able to grift, because his next primetime coverage will focus on one question only. He’ll continue to gaslight and mock, but what he will never do is approach the Jewish Question, or any real onslaught of idolaters against our livelihoods, with any sense of historical objectivity.
Here he asks, “Five years ago, how many people even knew what transgenderism was?”
And here: “Our current events are being driven by economic envy (socialism), racial envy (BLM), sexual envy (feminism), and so on. Our unregenerate streets are full of envy and rage, and there was a time when it was not that way.” He blames this on generic leftism, and so he punches the wind with his right hand.
He writes: “Opposition to Israel need not be anti-Semitic, of course, but until responsible opponents of Israel learn how to control those within their broad coalition who clearly have a bad case of rabies, deal me out.” In other words, Wilson will never really criticize Israel. “Rabies” is used here in the same dissimulating way that he uses “skinism.”
Wilson writes that “accusing the Jews of cheating” is “little man syndrome” because it fails to recognize that “the cultural superiority of the Jews is striking, stark, and obvious.” Moreover, their “cultural achievement and blessing, far from being a distraction from the gospel, is a necessary adjunct to the gospel.” Thus, “anti-Semitism…is the ungospel, the anti-gospel.” We Kinists are so old-fashioned that we thought Resurrection Denial was the anti-gospel.
Here he claims that Jew George Soros does what he does for the same reason that a Jewish chess master does what he does – because they’re talented. And if we claim that the Christ-killers, methodically pursuing their own interests, have waged a coordinated attack on the West since the early 20th century to settle an ancient blood feud, we’re guilty of “envy.” Only conspiracy theorists could theorize a conspiracy! And if we decide to retaliate against this threat, with extreme prejudice, we have profaned the sacrament of democracy or something. It’s similar to what Wilson writes here:
“One high talent Jew cooks up a cancerous Marxist plague that emanates from the Frankfurt School, a guy with a name like Horkheimer, say, and another high talent Jew carves out a cure for cancer from a bar of soap, with a name like Horowitz, say, thus winning the Nobel Prize—his third. Because the first guy is malevolent, the destructive impact of his high talent malevolence is high. Bad things happen all over the world as a result. We are looking at you, George Soros. Because the second guy is pursuing his own glory, not the glory of God, he already has his reward (Matt. 6:2), not yet having learned that a man who gives everything he has to the poor without love is still nothing (1 Cor. 13:3). But we still have the cure for cancer, for which we thank God. So thank God for Ben Shapiro. Thank God for Dennis Prager.”
He adds: “Talmudic Judaism really was a distortion of God’s Word, but you can’t really draw a straight line from that to various modern ills like communism, environmentalism, globalism, and the like. A number of Jews went that direction, sure enough, but some other Jews went on to carve a cure for cancer out of a bar of soap, which made all the anti-Semites even more irritated. In other words, the Jews are a high performance people, and so when they are bad, they are really bad, but enough about the Frankfurt School, and when they are good, they are really good.”
But oh, look at this: “Quite a few members of my immediate family have significant amounts of Jewish blood in their veins. The ancestry of all my grandchildren includes Rabbi Cohn, and for about a third of them, it also includes atheist Jews who were members of the communist party.”
This explains why Wilson routinely bore false witness against the writers of Little Geneva:
The anti-Semite has a problem with Jews no matter what they do, and no matter where they go. Doesn’t like them in Israel, doesn’t like them in Brooklyn, doesn’t like them in banking, doesn’t like them not in banking. Doesn’t like them in anything. Anti-Semites don’t even like Jews in Christ. A Jew could come into the Christian church, and yet there are anti-Semites who despise the waters of their baptism, believing the heresy that blood is thicker than baptismal water.
A good example of this would be the contempt shown for Christian baptism by the kinists at Little Geneva. Marvin Olasky is the editor of World magazine, a Jew who came to faith in Christ, an elder in a Presbyterian church, and a man with whom I have had significant differences. But he is a brother in Christ, and a very good man. But how is he referred to at Little Geneva? As that “Jew Olasky.” The contempt for Jews there is of course appalling. But the contempt for Christian baptism and the Christian church is far worse.
Nestled in various lies is the evidence of “anti-Semitism” against Marvin Olasky: identifying him as a Jew who seeks the collective interests of Jews, whether he is allegedly converted to Christ or not. Little Geneva provided Wilson with a detailed response to his malignorance of revolutionaries, but of course he ignored it, because what else could he do?
Marvin Olasky was a red-diaper baby who has had a long career of Jewish self-interest at the expense of Christians. He wrote that “the Bible should be understood as a pragmatic book and America as a pluralistic nation.” He said we should revel in imperialism. “Pluralism is a defense against dictatorship,” he said.
[L]ike it or not, today we have pluralism by providence, an abundance of factions religious and temporal. Some of us might wish that we lived in a different time, but that is coveting a situation different from that in which God has placed us. Christianity (in terms of more than nominal identification) is a minority religion in America, a faction powerless to dominate others, even if we wanted it to. That realization should lead us to work alongside other groups to oppose the truly aggressive force of our age, secular liberalism.
He called Jesus and the Pilgrims immigrants. After construction of the border fence promised by G.W. Bush, Olasky wrote, “we can then proceed to enact President Bush’s compassionate plan for a guest worker program and a process for those already in the country to begin legalizing their status.”
He urged Christians to withhold support for Roy Moore, saying such things as “there is no record of the Ten Commandments being exhibited [in Babylon],” and asking, “Do we want a civil war?”
He called Judaism an idea rather than an ethnicity. In the pages of a purportedly Christian magazine, he allowed a filthy rabbi to equate the authority of the Talmud with that of the New Testament.
Under Olasky’s leadership, you could buy a subscription to WORLD and find reviews of such Jewish works of art as American Pie and Brokeback Mountain, of which Olasky warned that “dismissing the film out-of-hand as further evidence of moral decline” does “a grave disservice.”
When James Dobson caved and promised not to push for actually banning sodomite marriage, but rather to settle for giving marriage a name-change operation, Olasky said Dobson deserved applause.
Olasky was upset about the explosion of sodomy on TV, but when Kinists went to his blog and posted comments listing the names of the writers and producers of the shows that started it all, like Ellen and Will & Grace, Olasky deleted them. He would never hesitate to publish the names of the enemies of Jews throughout the world, but the Jewish names of the enemies of Christians he would not allow to be circulated. The same things happened at Wilson’s blog, leading him to disable all comments. (Wilson precedes one of the quotes above by blaming this on Kinists: “The second reason for my ongoing take on kinism would be the regular parade of commenters on my blog, those who were a big part of my reason for turning comments off for most of my posts.”)
Like Wilson, Olasky believed that Israel should defend herself, and we should defend Israel, but we should not defend ourselves from Israel.
Olasky was outraged that the feds gave Fuller Seminary a million dollars to establish programs to ease tensions between Christians and Muslims, but he never complained about the billions of dollars per year that Israel receives, stolen from American taxpayers.
Without a hint of irony, he once wrote a headline: “Scared Westerners single out one religion for kid-gloves treatment.” No, not that religion, silly; he meant Islam.
Despite coining the term “compassionate conservatism,” Olasky accepted ads in WORLD Magazine from FLAME, a Zionist organization, to spread lies about Palestinians.
I could go on and on, but suffice it to say that Wilson lies when he casts our opposition to this filth as “contempt for Christian baptism.”
See this pull-quote from Wilson’s book, Skin & Blood, posted alongside the Kin, Skin & Sin article: “Because he rose from the dead, black men can repent of their envy, hatred, and resentment. Because he died as a perfect sacrifice for sin, white men can repent of their insolence and contempt.” I think this is well-said, along the lines of what the Apostle Paul does in Ephesians 5 and 6, where he focuses on the most common sins of each party by commanding men to love their wives, wives to submit to their husbands, and children and slaves to obey. Kinists reject genetic and social equality of aptitude and predilections, and so we have always recognized that sins which are common to one nation or people may not be common to others. There is among whites a blasphemous spirit of humanist independence coupled with a pathological altruism used as a tool for scoring higher social credit, just as there is among blacks a murderous resentment for those who have preached to them a false religion of equality that never comes to fruition, because equality is impossible in all respects but one: our equal need to be saved from our rather diverse sins.
Wilson knows our position on such matters very well, because it is the same opinion held by our Christian ancestors, but for about 20 years he has borne false witness against us, saying, for instance: “I will believe that the kinists are not driven by racially-based malice or vainglory (which is how I have defined racism) when they begin attacking the sins of their own people as the result of racially based predispositions.” It’s simply a lie that we have failed to do this, but that’s the point; through lies and evasion Wilson is able to create a fictional opposition and then, having chopped his straw men to bits, brag to his amen choir for years about having dispatched the Kinists forthwith, when he has done no such thing.
It’s an old and transparent game. We’re supposed to say “bad” things about whites, and “good” things about everyone else, lest the “malice and vainglory” hammer descend upon us. But Wilson has never been willing to do the opposite. Anyone who has followed his writing knows that whenever he mentions whites collectively or regionally, there will be jokes about the structures in which they live, their slender family trees, and the condition of their teeth. This is Wilson’s way of signaling that his political views are acceptable to the anti-Christ media. One example of many is seen here, where he recounts that a woman on his daughter’s flight congratulated her “for doing her part in perpetuating the white race. Um, thanks for nothing, ma’am.” Whites are now only eight percent of the world population, and the thought that he and his family members would be viewed as doing anything helpful for their own endangered kind is abhorrent to Wilson.
Here are some other reasons given by Wilson for his long-standing refusal to engage with Kinists, though he was always more than happy to engage with kosher reprobates like Christopher Hitchens. As previously mentioned, he denies that race exists. He doesn’t want to believe that genetic predispositions exist either, and so they must not exist, despite all evidence to the contrary, as seen through one’s lying eyes.
He confirms that even apostles were guilty of noticing and rebuking entire ethnic groups, with extremely harsh language, such as calling all Cretans evil beasts, lazy gluttons, and liars. But Cretans could not have had any of this in common genetically, Wilson assures, without any corroborating proof whatsoever. “This testimony is true, Paul said, but he did not state it as a genetic truth.” How exactly would one state something as a “genetic truth” if one wished to do so?
By the way, Cretans were even worse than this. Plato said it was the Cretans who invented the story of Ganymede, a young boy abducted by Zeus and taken to Olympus to be his lover, to justify the faggotry of the Cretans.
And then Wilson pulls from Little Geneva a word that should only be uttered on Netflix, and only if the movie begins with a disclaimer by Whoopi Goldberg to lament the benighted discourse of the 1980s, but to press on with the opening credits, because to do otherwise would be a disservice to the shareholders. Wilson claims this is what amounts to “malice and vainglory,” which for his purposes was simply the means to the end of evading a debate that he couldn’t win. He wrote to his followers: “Now that the record is straight, I would encourage folks to stay away from these guys.” Better to do the “Judeochristian” thing and allow Jesse Jackson to control the language, and be shocked decades later when “whiteness” is seriously discussed by academics as the work of the devil.
Wilson’s son Nathan argues that there is no such thing as an inherently bad word, and the right word to use in a given situation may be necessarily vulgar. The apostles themselves agreed. Some of the harshest language is found in 2 Peter 2:
Bold and arrogant, these men…blaspheme in matters they do not understand. They are like brute beasts, creatures of instinct, born only to be caught and destroyed, and like beasts they too will perish… They will be paid back with harm for the harm they have done… They are blots and blemishes, reveling in their pleasures while they feast with you. With eyes full of adultery, they never stop sinning; they seduce the unstable; they are experts in greed—an accursed brood!… Of them the proverbs are true: “A dog returns to its vomit,” and, “A sow that is washed goes back to her wallowing in the mud.”
It’s always amusing to witness pearl-clutching over language by those whose reputation was built on pejorative language. Civil discourse is not always appropriate. There is a time for refusing to concede ground. There is a time to call things what they are, and we’re under no obligation to use wholesome language for criminals and vipers, for men (of all races) who make a mockery of God’s Word and destroy our people and our civilization. A show of disgust over politically forbidden words is always for the purpose of replacing those words with language that, as Orwell wrote, “is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable.” And isn’t this the curse of Deuteronomy 28, when the Lord brings a nation against you “whose language you will not understand”? Unfortunately, too many Christians believe they can allow their enemies to set the terms of communication. This is why they believe that “Holocaust Denial” must be outlawed but not Resurrection Denial. It’s the same kind of misplaced prudery that existed in Victorian England, when whores were allowed to cover the streets but piano legs were draped in petticoats, to uphold an appearance of modesty.
The funniest thing about the pearl-clutching and schoolmarmish hyperventilating is that no one is actually offended by words, least of all the epicenes in the pulpits. The question is always who is promoting the postmodern deconstruction of language; who is permitted to use words for the purpose of their own propaganda, and who is forbidden.
The loathsome feminist J.K. Rowling has now famously learned that the word “woman” attached to biological certainty is hate speech. “Mother” has been replaced by “pregnant person.” Now ovaries rather than women produce eggs.
Language has been somewhat of a minefield for Wilson. Who can forget his rule that the word “fag” is sinful but “poofter” is how Real Men With Beards talk, seeing as how “abashed and effeminate rhetoric is not what you find in the mouths of fathers and husbands who actually understand what is going on around here”? Apparently, the fathers and husbands of his church are defeatist and pacifist in the civil sphere. They hang a “not welcome” sign on the front door when Globohomo comes calling, but mimic John Piper when it kicks the door down. They even set a place for it at the dinner table:
Under a curse, we should own the curse of same-sex marriage and not fight it so far as it concerns them. That is not our calling…
Jeremiah said to “seek the peace of the city” (Jer. 29:7), not protest pagan legislation. In the brewing culture wars, we ought not to stand with those seeking to ban same-sex marriage (or with those seeking to impose it). We ought to declare publicly (frustrating both sides) that we embrace this curse. If the civil authority demands our political tunic, we let him have our political cloak also…
At the same time as offering no resistance in the civil realm, we increase the fight within the Church.
This was written in the wake of the Obergefell decision in 2015. Wilson concluded that homosexuality may be genetic, but racial differences are not! Yet a straight line can be drawn between integration law and sodomy law. The Massachusetts court that originally legalized sodomite marriage cited the Loving v. Virginia decision 25 times. It was the Loving decision that nationally outlawed the ban against miscegenation (which had almost the full support of Christians) in 1967. The Massachusetts court also cited the illegal 14th Amendment 13 times, and it is that amendment on which the entire body of case law supporting the house of cards called Equality is built. (Of course, one of the pillars – Roe v. Wade – finally fell, which was based on the fictional “right to privacy” that was protected for half a century by the 14th Amendment.)
Fruits Without Roots
McAtee said it best: Wilson “wants the fruit (Christian Civilization) without accepting the root (Christian Kinism).” He observes that Wilson has tried for (literally) decades to tar the entire decentralized Kinist movement as malicious and vainglorious. As is true of any movement, there are internal, minor disputes, but Wilson knew that he could gain the most rhetorical effect by avoiding debate and avoiding clarity, the opposite of what would be expected under any other circumstances for Christian brothers. At the same time, “he was forever trying to disambiguate himself from the more rabid Federal Visionists.”
We now live under the illusion of free speech while it is effectively outlawed. Alex Jones now owes a billion dollars for stating an opinion. In Charlotte, NC, the former employee of an assisted living center claims that she is owed damages for suffering in a racially hostile work environment because she was called the dreaded “Nigger Word” three times by the six-year-old grandson of the facility’s owner. And this is a legitimate case, returned to a district court by a circuit court of appeals, because the question is whether an allowance can be made for someone so young or if, as is true in similar cases where adults are accused, a single instance of The Most Evil Word Ever Spoken is enough to prove harassment.
Here’s why this matters. When impastors adopt the Judeo-Communist rulebook for legal speech, it creates a system of double standards wherein a word that is perfectly acceptable for one group is forbidden for another. This makes law subjective and easily exploitative, as can be seen in the UK, where the official policy for “hate speech” is based on whether someone, somewhere, was offended:
Any criminal offence which is perceived by the victim or any other person, to be motivated by hostility or prejudice, based on a person’s disability or perceived disability; race or perceived race; or religion or perceived religion; or sexual orientation or perceived sexual orientation or transgender identity or perceived transgender identity.
Wikipedia: “Something is a hate incident if the victim or anyone else think it was motivated by hostility or prejudice…”
As Dávila wrote, “Dying societies accumulate laws like dying men accumulate remedies.” But worst of all is when ministers of the gospel elevate violations of these phony laws to the level of sin.
We should never allow our enemies to define the terms of civil discourse. When words that were perfectly acceptable and useful to our fathers are no longer acceptable and useful, and when those who first told us that they are no longer acceptable and useful are Satan’s Wretched Bastards, we should ask Lenin’s famous question: “Who, whom?” Who will overtake whom? Kinists have a definite answer to the question, and we don’t stutter.
Ambiguity is the fortress of heretics.
Fantasy Versus What Actually Works
If racial and ethnic diversity works, if it actually supports Christian community, would it be rude to ask if it has worked for Uganda and Liberia, the two most diverse countries in the world? Are these countries role models of Christian charity? Would Wilson consider these safe places to raise his grandchildren? Or would Japan and the Koreas, the most homogeneous countries in the world, be better? And if this has nothing to do with being homogenous or heterogenous, what is the explanation for the obvious superiority of the latter? Are Asian pathetic gods better than African pathetic gods?
There are 189 nation-states in the world, and 150 of these include four or more ethnic groups within their boundaries. In 61 countries, the largest ethnic group makes up 90 percent or more of the entire population. Anyone who undertakes the task of refuting Kinism must explain how these 61 countries, one-third of the total, have disadvantaged themselves.
Is it objectively good that the Quebecois are ethnically distinct Canadians and can govern themselves to some extent? Does the common European heritage of Argentines and Chileans make them more cooperative or less? Is Iran more cohesive or less, having large Azeri, Kurdish, and Arab populations? You can pretend that race doesn’t exist and call Kinism evil, but you can’t do these things while honestly assessing the God-given natural tools that allow men to live in harmony.
The bond of blood explains why Japan is more unified than heterogeneous and multi-ethnic Malaysia. Even Singapore is more unified than Malaysia, having the same ethnic groups as Malaysia but being more than 75 percent Chinese. Yet all of these have been fast-growing economies.
More than a hundred countries are developing economically. Using race, religion, and language as criteria, as well as historical evidence of ethnic conflict, the world is roughly equally divided between homogeneous and heterogeneous countries. But the homogeneous countries are richer and grow faster. From 1965 to 1990, homogeneous countries grew twice as fast as heterogeneous countries. But the difference is even more stark than that, because more than half of developing countries classified as heterogeneous are in sub-Saharan Africa. Out of 14 exceptionally fast-growing economies (having per capita GDP at 4 percent or higher), ten were homogeneous. Only four (Botswana, Indonesia, Thailand, and Malaysia) were heterogeneous.
Of course, there are many other factors to consider, such as heterogeneous countries having vast natural resources and strong geographical boundaries, but the point is that a scientific approach to Kinism proves that 1) ethnic homogeneity is covariant with national success according to many measures; 2) ethnic heterogeneity is covariant with national failure according to many measures, including conflict and economic debilitation; and 3) we have zero examples of high incomes and advanced economic growth – or any other factors, including Christian conversion – turning heterogeneous countries homogeneous. Paint doesn’t unmix itself.
Ethnic conflict across African national boundaries only proves that blood is stronger than the rather arbitrary colonial boundaries imposed on Africa. Meddlesome attempts by outsiders to form national borders always end in failure. Does anyone really believe that Kosovo will exist for long? It will go the way of heterogeneous Czechoslovakia, Yugoslavia, and the Soviet Union. Lasting national borders of the kind referenced in Scripture, where we are commanded not to remove ancient landmarks, are formed and maintained by ethnonationalism only. This is why we see relatively little ethnic conflict in heavily homogeneous Central and South America, excepting countries like Bolivia, Guatemala, and Peru, where there are significant internal divisions between settlers and Indians, and in Brazil, including slave descendants.
In 28 of the USA’s 100 largest metro areas, two or more minority groups are highly represented. These include New York, Chicago, Houston, and Dallas, where each of the three largest minority groups are highly represented. Anyone who undertakes the task of refuting Kinism must prove that these 28 metro areas are demonstrably more cohesive than less diverse cities like Kansas City and Cincinnati.
The Witness of the Fathers
We could learn a great deal from the doctrine of Kinism that is beautifully expressed inThe Bases of the Social Concept of the Russian Orthodox Church:
In addition to their sharing one religion, the unity of the people of God was secured by their ethnic and linguistic community and their rootedness in a particular land, their fatherland. [Israel as example]… The universal nature of the Church, however, does not mean that Christians should have no right to national identity and national self-expressions. On the contrary, the Church unites in herself the universal with the national.
God holds first place, for He is supremely excellent, and is for us the first principle of being and government. In the second place, the principles of our being and government are our parents and our country, that have given us birth and nourishment. Consequently, man is debtor chiefly to his parents and his country, after God. Wherefore just as it belongs to religion to give worship to God, so does it belong to piety, in the second place, to give worship to one’s parents and one’s country [i.e., one’s people]. The worship due to our parents includes the worship given to all our kindred, since our kinfolk are those who descend from the same parents.
Geerhardus Vos, who is called by some the father of Reformed biblical theology, made the same case for ethnonationalism:
Nationalism, within proper limits, has the divine sanction; an imperialism that would, in the interest of one people, obliterate all lines of distinction is everywhere condemned as contrary to the divine will. Later prophecy raises its voice against the attempt at world-power, and that not only, as is sometimes assumed, because it threatens Israel, but for the far more principal reason, that the whole idea is pagan and immoral. Now it is through maintaining the national diversities, as these express themselves in the difference of language, and are in turn upheld by this difference, that God prevents realization of the attempted scheme… [In this] was a positive intent that concerned the natural life of humanity. Under the providence of God each race or nation has a positive purpose to serve, fulfillment of which depends on relative seclusion from others.
The Witness of Fools
If you want a good example of how lost a man can become who decides to resist such sound doctrine, see Andrew Sandlin. He was R.J. Rushdoony’s editor, but he abandoned Reconstructionism for masturbatory libertarianism about 20 years ago, because he thought conversion in the church realm is at odds with coercion in the civil realm. His libertarianism led him to the position “that homosexuals should enjoy the same civil rights as heterosexuals.”
Sandlin now treats globalism and race-mixing as Christian imperatives. He has promoted what he calls “communal tribalism,” alleging that “inherent in the new covenant era is the abolition of tribal and racial localisms and the global expansion of both the Gospel and the people of God — and families.” He has used the term “ideational homogeneity” and has denounced “familial utopians” and Christian patriarchy as “a revival of pagan tribalism.” He has lamented that there are “a few families (usually white families) with children who are trained up to marry each other and perpetuate the (white) spiritual species in the church.”
Michael Horton is another who “dismisses Christendom as coercive and incompatible with the Gospel, siding with the Anabaptists rather than Knox, Zwingli, Calvin, and Luther,” as Darrell Dow writes in his Christian Defense of Nationalism article at CrossPolitic, to the bottom of which the proprietors (Doug Wilson fanboys) posted a “Here Be Dragons” warning.
Likewise, Baylor historian Thomas Kidd describes nations as “imagined communities.” Like the OPC and Wilson, who declare that racism is sin, even though race doesn’t exist, Kidd can’t define nationalism, but it must be bad, whatever it is, even though nations don’t exist. And here you can see that it all leads to conditions of pagan supremacy:
Imagine being a Christian and denying that we currently have blasphemy laws enforced against us. We must reject and replace all clergymen, theologians, and philosophers who make it impossible to govern ourselves. If these men were on the payroll of George Soros, one could scarcely imagine how what they teach would be different.
Oops – Wilson Publishes “Our Guy”
Doug Wilson has always been a master of triangulation. How to continue doing this while the Overton Window is moving to the right at a brisk pace requires impressive skill. His usual method for doing this where race is concerned is to pretend that he has actually debated Kinists and emerged victorious, and then use his caricature of Kinism as the stand-in for what the church must continue to overcome lest it recede into the ancient shadow of what Christians believed prior to 1960.
Now that “Christian Nationalism” is making news, Wilson’s Canon Press has published Stephen Wolfe’s The Case for Christian Nationalism, and it is excellent, but Wilson would not have published it if Wolfe were admittedly a Kinist. The problem for Wilson is that Wolfe is certainly a “racist” and a “Kinist” (if in all but name), and all the well-but’s in the world won’t convince the ADL otherwise.
Wolfe writes that there are no international relations and treaties without nations, and there can be no nations without nationalism, and there can be no nationalism without culture, and there can be no culture without segregation, which results in monoethnicity. Even multiethnic cultures are temporary until they blend into a monoethnicity again. Though this is not Wolfe’s conclusion, one can easily conclude that the choice is inevitably between integrationist, miscegenist Globalism and segregationist, ethnonationalist Kinism, and there are no other choices.
Wolfe’s belief that interracial and interethnic marriage is “sinful relatively” and opposed to the good of one’s people is reminiscent of R.J. Rushdoony’s statement that interracial marriages are “barely legal,” and 99% of the time are unsuitable for the purpose of marriage.
When confronted on this a few days ago by the usual suspects, Wolfe changed his mind. More on this below, but first, here are some excellent quotes from Wolfe’s book, and notice that this a precise expression of the Kinism that Wilson has denounced at every turn as “malicious” and “vainglorious”:
Though Christianity is a universal religion—a religion for all nations—it does not eliminate nations, nor create one global alternative nation, nor provide a universal “gospel culture.” Rather, Christianity assumes nations…and completes them.
It would be difficult to write a more succinct expression of Kinism than this:
The instinct to love the familiar more than the foreign is good and remains operative in all spiritual states of man.
The in-group/out-group distinction, which prioritizes concern for one’s own people and native soil, troubles many in the West, at least when Western ethnic-groups begin to distinguish themselves in this way. Christians will ask, “Aren’t we called to love all equally?” assuming the affirmative answer is obvious. But despite modern Christian sentiment, a quick glance at the Christian tradition (and mild reflection of one’s own relationships) reveals the almost ubiquity of the opposite view – that the intensity of love varies by degree according to similarity and the extent that another is bound to you…
The particularity of people and place is a necessary good for living well, for it is the ground of robust civil fellowship. Being a necessary good, it is worthy of conservation, and civil authority ought to conserve it. It also creates conditions for true religion to flourish, serving as the ethno-cultural substructure for cultural Christianity, Christian civil law, and strong civil rulers. Thus, the Christian religion, though itself universal, flourishes in particularity. Christianity flourishes in nations. It would seem, then, that too much immigration and bad immigration policies damage the people, even striking at fundamental goods. Therefore, such policies, though not absolutely and universally unjust, can be tyrannical and can create tyrannical conditions…
The nation is not a people united around propositions alone… The people and place are one, for the adorned meaning of spaces depends on the people, and the people, taken as a whole, are the place. This people-place symbiosis is held together by ties of affection, based fundamentally on natural affection toward kin. One loves a particular people in a particular place because his family did so too, and through his connection with his family and their activity with others, he has a homeland and a people.
This is what our fathers called the love of blood and soil, or as it is now known, “Nazism.”
Ultimately, the modern Westerner resides in another’s land. This is true not because he stole it centuries earlier, but because he keeps and maintains it for the taking of outsiders, who he invites and who ultimately dispossess him. Indeed, his own dispossession has become the Westerner’s only good. Thus, Western man, whose birthrates have plummeted, creates well-ordered spaces and civil institutions not for himself and his natural progeny but for his replacements…
The primary obstacle for the embrace of nationalism is modern Western psychology. If you do not eradicate or suppress the habits of the mind that (at best) suppress natural aspirations for national greatness or (at worst) project your aspirations on the other (to whom you toss your national birthright) then you’ll never fully embrace nationalism; and ultimately your people will self-immolate in national suicide.
Again, this is all according to plan. It’s easy to identify who is investing in the promotion of white genocide, but as soon as you name them, expect to be canceled. Remind your pastor that his calling is not to be a coward like Wilson. His calling is to preach that every knee must bow to Christ, and every tongue must confess Christ, and blaspheming tongues will be removed.
Wolfe’s desire to pursue the truth at all costs is inspiring and will likely have him admit to being a dyed-in-the-wool Kinist in short order. In the meantime, you can see some damage control here.
You can see that where Wolfe goes off-trail is in equating ethnicity with culture. Perhaps in a future revision, Wolfe will benefit from Kinist scholarship, including Bret McAtee’s incomparable definition of culture, which will correct some of Wolfe’s misunderstandings. Culture, says McAtee, is religion poured over ethnicity.
Some of the misunderstandings and inconsistencies can be seen below, including the scare-quoting of race, which makes Wolfe “respectable” enough to be published at Wilson’s Pit of Perpetual Pettifoggery.
Surely, Wolfe would affirm that individual cases are governed by the father’s veto power, according to our duties under the Fifth Commandment. If so, this makes him a functional Kinist, as all Christians must be. No white man wants his children to marry outside the race, and everyone who denies this is lying. Every healthy family photo has grandchildren who look like their grandparents.
Wolfe Addresses Kinism
Wolfe makes an excellent point in his book about Kinism, which is that confused and feckless evangelicals now reflexively play to the approval of the (((coastal elites))). Pick a sin, like transgenderism, for instance, and the evangelical witness will be syrupy-sweet, empathetic, non-judgmental, designed to persuade and convert the sadly-misguided.
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.
It’s as though Wolfe is writing about his own publisher, Doug Wilson, who has caricatured Kinism to avoid facing it like a man and dealing with it, for good or ill, on its merits, which is how he would approach any other subject. The difference is that an honest appraisal of Kinism sends Wilson to the dunce’s corner, and he knows it.
The point about enslavement is critical. Such men are race-mixed and race-confused, even when, like Wilson, they run as far from “diversity” as their church offerings will carry them. Having shielded themselves and their families from its consequences, they can pretend that race doesn’t exist, which gains the approval they crave from their masters.
Contrast this with the courage required by Wolfe to write this:
Christian nationalism does not deny the good of viewpoint diversity. But, as with the American regime, the acceptable range ought to be bounded by principles of inclusion and exclusion. One of those principles is the privacy of Christian peoplehood, and so Christian nationalism will exclude at least the following from acceptable opinion and action: 1) political atheism, 2) subversion of public Christianity, 3) opposition to Christian morality, 4) heretical teaching, and 5) the political and social influence of non-Christian religion and its adherents.
A Kinist couldn’t imagine that anyone who is a fellow Christian could oppose this plan, because it is the same thing that Ferdinand and Isabella did when they expelled all Jews and Muslims from Spain, for the same reasons, inaugurating Spain’s Golden Age. But this presupposes a vital and obedient Christian faith, not the impotent joke that passes for it in our time, every sermon essentially ending with “please clap.”
For the scepter of wickedness shall not rest on the land allotted to the righteous, lest the righteous reach out their hands to iniquity.
At 11:08 in this interview, Wolfe speaks of “an occupation that we’re under” that is “imposing values upon us.” There is a “foreign adversary trying to impose bizarre values on us,” and our duty is to “resist them.” They are “not organic to the American people as such. It’s a set of elites that identify internationally who want to impose a certain set of values upon everyone in the entire world.”
Again, this shows tremendous courage, but with no offense to Wolfe, we must cease this coded language. It’s intended to soften the blow for sleepers, but it doesn’t help anyone gain an understanding of the truth. If you ask the ADL what Wolfe means by this, you won’t have to wait more than half a second for the answer. If he means to refer to the nebulous “left,” he’s no different than Wilson’s Satanic buddy, Dennis Prager. If we Kinists are asked what he means by this, we’ll agree with the ADL and buy him a beer.
The problem is that Wilson equates this kind of ambiguity with godliness, and if you use a word he doesn’t like to describe certain people and their general tendencies, he’ll make sure that you are marked as causing divisions in the body of Christ. This is what we call playing it up for the ladies, because it’s not a masculine form of communication. (All sermons these days are stylized for the ladies too, but let me get back on track.)
I mentioned above that Wolfe did an about-face on his statement that interracial marriage is “sinful relatively” and opposed to the good of one’s people. You can listen to his explanation for this here, which I would describe as Wolfe thinking in real-time about how to make his theories work; specifically, how to make Christian Nationalism work without condemning the cultural cancer of miscegenation as sinful. The problem is that this involves severing culture from blood, or treating culture as what needs to be preserved rather than the blood that produces the culture. He knows that miscegenation degrades culture, but he didn’t want to call any particular marriage “immoral in itself.” This is why he said that it must be “sinful relatively,” and now he says his earlier view was “false.”
Now, the Kinist position on this is very simple. We are duty-bound to honor the wishes of our parents, and nothing we ever do for our parents is more important than marrying the kind of person they wish for us to marry. Every person who has married interracially has violated his duty under the Fifth Commandment. That’s the kind of sin that wrecks generations, which is why there isn’t a white man alive who honestly desires it for his progeny.
You can snort the cope, as the black man on the panel does, and claim that the only kind of immoral marriage is when a Christian marries a non-Christian, but that fails the Fifth Commandment test as well. No father would allow his 20-year-old Christian daughter to marry a 70-year-old Christian man. The problem these days is that the father is considered the problem!
More of Wolfe’s thought processes are unspooled in real-time as he tells the black guy (whose first name is “Chocolate”) that a Christian marrying a non-Christian is what he would call a “relative” sin rather than an “absolute” sin, because he would still call it a marriage, though it was formed in sin, and so a “covenant” exists that we’re powerless to undo, even though this wasn’t the case for Ezra and Nehemiah. Weird stuff. And then the host claims that one’s people and history are based solely on “covenant,” not race and ethne, and this alone can theoretically carry us forward. Except that this is not what we see anywhere in the world, at any time.
Did anyone ask her father?
Race and ethnicity are so intimately connected that if you try to remove race from the equation, you have to redefine ethnicity too. Wolfe removes blood as the primary connector and replaces it with a kind of familiar proximity.
My impression is that the book swings more to the Kinist side than the tweets that followed publication of the book, which were responses to those who insisted that he prove he’s not a “racist” or (gasp) a Kinist. “Show me your papers, Wolfe!” In the book, he writes: “I use the terms ‘ethnicity’ and ‘nation’ almost synonymously,” and he adds, “no nation (properly speaking) is composed of two or more ethnicities,” and “a ‘community in blood’ is crucial to ethnicity.” He writes that “ethnicity, as something experienced [note that word], is familiarity with others based in common language, manners, customs, stories, taboos, rituals, calendars, social expectations, duties, loves, and religion.” This echoes John Jay, who wrote in Federalist #2 that we are bound by a common language, common heritage, common principles of government, and common manners and customs, as well as “joint counsels, arms, and efforts.” (But you can see that Jay stressed “common heritage” as indispensable.) In these, writes Wolfe, we find “mutual trust,” not in a dead social contract but in what Burke called the partnership between the living, the dead, and those who are yet to be born. Kinism recognizes the importance of all these things, but does a bloodless Christian Nationalism? Kinism rejects all attempts to order society without sola Scriptura, but does an anti-theocratic Christian Nationalism?
Kinists also recognize that “the West” means the whites who created “Western civilization,” and no others. It’s our home, not an international airport concourse. And this leads us to the big question: Who are these Christian Nationalists who have no desire to ensure the survival of the white race in their ancestral homelands? It’s almost impossible to find someone black who is not a staunch advocate for his own people. Almost all whites, liberal or conservative, live in a similar fashion, surrounding themselves to the degree that they can afford with the familiarity of their own racial kind. But who that is not white and Christian is receptive to the message of Christian Nationalism? My guess is that only whites are buying Wolfe’s book, and they should, because it’s a treasure trove. But how much of the enthusiasm is simply cope? How much of it is the attempt to preserve the inheritance we received from our fathers without being called racists?
Go to 9:00 in this interview, where Wolfe affirms that “kin groups” and a “relation of blood” are necessary components in defining a nation, but that nationhood allows for “common experience” despite “different bloodlines.” Wilson suggests that the common experience includes “language, culture, diet, geography, and history,” and Wolfe agrees.
At 12:52, Wilson asks Wolfe to deny that “Christian nationalism is simply a dog-whistle for white supremacy,” and Wolfe obliges, but then Wolfe mentions that for the last century this “nation” has struggled with the question, “Who are we?” And rather than entertain the Kinist answer that the GAE is no nation at all, Wolfe suggests that the main reason why we should restrict immigration is to give the intermarriage that has already occurred enough time to allow assimilation so that we can put our various skull shapes together and decide who we really are. At 16:08, he makes it clear that this “is not a matter of maintaining white people” but rather the “genesis” of a new people.
Those of us who never voted for this plan but who have a crystal-clear idea of who we are as a people are out of luck, I guess. It’s basically a call for a baptized, semi-coercive civic nationalism. It’s not Kinism, or Christian ethnonationalism, but it is enough to shock the hell out of those who believe that in Christ all natural affections are obsolete. In fact, the very words “natural affections” give many people these days the vapors. But some will be drawn one step closer to us, and we’re in favor of that.
At 19:40, Wilson asks Wolfe a question that is intended to draw a line between this theoretical arrangement and Kinism. He asks if natural affections extend beyond one’s parents to one’s grandparents and great-grandparents. I think Wolfe might have missed the anti-Kinist point of why Wilson asked the question, but of course we know it very well.
At 24:30, Wilson expresses opposition to allowing statehood for Puerto Rico but supports accepting Puerto Ricans as fellow Americans, He claims that they don’t deserve statehood “because it’s like an IQ test; this doesn’t fit, it doesn’t match, linguistically.” Interesting. In reply, Wolfe denies opposing empires in principle, but says there should be a legal authority in an empire or nation-state to establish a distinct people as separate from the rest, which Puerto Rico has in their “quasi-autonomous government.” This would have been a golden opportunity for either man to affirm or deny whether the same privileges should be accorded to whites. What are the specific public policy proposals of Christian Nationalism?
A thought experiment at 30:05 gives us a glimpse. Wolfe affirms that Christian Nationalism would allow mosques and synagogues to exist, but only church bells ought to be heard in public. It’s only the public aspect of idolatry that is forbidden, says Wolfe, and it “would be inappropriate for a Christian nation” to suppress it further. In America, he says, we’re not “all of a sudden going to put heretics to death.” Both men admire American “religious liberty” and “freedom of conscience,” as though it must positively sanction idolatry or make Christians guilty of forced conversions. This is a common, fundamentally baptist, confusion of categories, and it’s how our once-Christian states were handed to pagans on a platter. But I confess that Wolfe’s position on this point is hard to discern, because he does advocate anti-blasphemy laws and punishing Sabbath violations – because such laws coordinate our activities, similar to how lights coordinate traffic – and says he opposes the (baptist) concept that there should be Christians, and a government, but not a Christian government; but then he agrees with Wilson that there can be no such thing as a covenanted Christian nation in principle, to which you would not find one medieval Christian in a thousand who would agree. Wilson supports anti-blasphemy laws too, but only because we are already subjected to anti-blasphemy laws. This amounts to nothing more than a seat at the table of democracy, not a positive argument for enforcing God’s law.
Read 2 Kings 23 if you want the Kinist model of political reform.
Obviously, some of what has been covered here is disappointing, but if Wolfe is able to filter out nattering nitwits like Wilson, and if he continues to connect the dots, he’ll be able to do great things for his people. He is unmistakably brilliant, as you can see in his review of Rachel Levine’s book, What Are Christians For?:
Thus, we see manifested in the Western world certain contradictions: to have a place you must be displaced; to belong somewhere you must belong nowhere; to have a people you must identify with all people; and to be good you must be immutably bad and act only for the good of the outsider.
Most white people in the United States and Europe indeed feel less and less at home and more and more foreignness. But it isn’t because of some ideology that began five hundred years ago. Rather, it is the limitless flood of immigration, the unchecked crime, and the hostile capture and racialization of institutions. There was plenty of belonging and sense of home, until recently.
Christian Nationalism Versus Theocracy
If miscegenation and political pluralism have ever conquered sin, would it be rude of us to expect that evidence for this ought to have manifested by now?
Christian Nationalism bears a wonderful name. Give us Christ for every tribe and nation! But a Christian Nationalism that denies the importance of ethnic homogeneity will only weaken the nations, like the iron mixed with clay in Daniel 2:43, referring to the nations that mixed with Rome through intermarriage and alliances. Rome retained part of its strength for a while, but there was no stable amalgamation, and no future.
A propositional Christian Nationalism that rejects the importance of ancient blood bonds and hierarchies will seek to protect only the domain of the family, because higher temporal loyalties will either be considered superfluous or unworthy of stewardship. You can see this expressed, perhaps unwittingly, by the advocates of Christian Nationalism at Gab, for whom we have great affection:
But that’s not good enough, and it never has been. Disconnected families will fare no better against the pagan state than individuals. Only theocracy (not ecclesiocracy, as it is often misconstrued) can actually vanquish democracy and all the kleptocrats who hide under its cover. This is why our fathers hated democracy and actually advanced the kingdom of Christ in the world. They considered enforcement of God’s law from the top to be just as important as willful conversion from the bottom.
The average Christian Nationalist today disagrees:
To reject theocracy is to reject God’s rule over all nations. Heaven is his throne, and the earth is his footstool. Many who now support Christian Nationalism are not the sort of men who would have swept across this continent, taking it from merciless savages, because it was destined for service to God. And they’re not the sort of men who will wrest it from the Synagogue of Satan today. When you see Christian Nationalists condemn democracy, you’ll know that it has become an effective movement, and the enemies of Christian Nationalism will react to the threat with unmistakable panic. They’re not panicked at all today, and this should tell us something.
Andrew Torba of Gab recently posted an article on Christian Nationalism, written by E. Wils, that reinforces my point:
Christian Nationalism can be summarized by this: God instituted governments to promote good and punish evil, and it is a duty of the Christian to inform the magistrate of what God calls good and evil… Many have claimed that Christian Nationalism is about instituting a theocracy when nothing could be farther from the truth… The distinction between Christian Nationalism and Theocracy can be made because Christian Nationalism is about enforcing the second table of the Law and not the first… This has led some to think Christian Nationalism is a threat to democracy; thankfully, in the United States, we have a Republic.
To which let the reader be warned that this bears no resemblance to what our church fathers enjoined. John Calvin, for one example among many, taught that government has the duty of “rightly establishing religion” (Institutes 4.20.3), and must prevent and punish “idolatry, sacrilege against God’s Name, blasphemies against his truth, and other public offenses against religion.” He taught that even more severe penalties were required for violations of the first table of the law than the second, because God’s honor, rather than man’s, is at stake. In 4.20.9, he writes that “those laws are preposterous which neglect God’s right and provide only for men.”
So then, what ought kings, Emperors, and Magistrates to do? They ought to see that God be exalted and magnified as he is worthy, and that all their subjects do him homage, and they themselves must show them the way. (Calvin, Sermons on Deuteronomy, Fourth Sermon Upon the First Chapter, 4/11/1555)
Let those to whom God has done the honor to give them the mace of Justice, & whom he has set in his seat, be well advised that they reign in his name, that they cause all men to serve and honor him, that they be as mirrors to give good example to their people… (Calvin, Sermons on Deuteronomy, First Sermon Upon the Seventh Chapter, 8/1/1555)
God has declared that in the reign of his son, even kings should be called to the knowledge of the truth, and become a part of his Church: It behooves them to give example to their people, and it is good reason that they should employ their whole power and authority to maintain the good doctrine, and to cause God to be honored and served, and to drive away all idolatry and superstition, and to see that it be not Lawful for any man to spew blasphemies against God. (Calvin, Sermons on Deuteronomy, Second Sermon Upon the Thirteenth Chapter, 10/12/1555)
On his Plodcast #251, Wilson says the only choices available are Christian or secular versions of globalism, tribalism, or nationalism. He says only secular tribalism would be “defined by ideology or race or ethnicity or something like that,” while “Christian tribalism” might occur temporarily in the aftermath of a failed state. Notice that there is no overlap of blood, soil, and faith in his fictional arrangement, even though this is precisely what Kinism is and what Wolfe says is necessary for how nations throughout history are born and survive.
Wilson claims that “Christian globalism” or “Christian internationalism” is what will be realized 50 years before Christ returns. Implicitly, national borders are dissolved, and nations themselves become nothing more than regional administrations, relics of the past, accidents of history. Needless to say, this is such an esoteric, cultish view of eschatology in the scope of Christian history that it has much in common with dispensationalists believing that Jesus can’t return until enough Jews move to Israel to be murdered by the Antichrist.
Since Wilson’s vision of “Christian globalism” is the ultimate goal but won’t happen any time soon, because Africa is nowhere close to being the “dazzling civilization” that Wilson envisions, he says he must default to “Christian nationalism” for now. But not only is this an unprincipled stand, what he means by this is simply “Christian globalism” on a smaller scale; it’s an implicit denial that nations have a significant blood identity and are designed as such by God for our good. His philosophy is simply new-age Gnosticism. It bears no likeness to how our own nation or any other was born. It can claim no voices of affirmation from our fathers in the faith. It is built entirely on the Satanic philosophy of 20th century refugees from the Ashkenazi Jewish population of eastern Europe, who themselves (speaking of DNA) are descended from only 350 people who lived 600 years ago.
We certainly agree with Davis Carlton that Wilson’s attempt to promote a Christian Nationalism that is free of “racism” will be “vague anti-globalism stripped of any real potency.” And we agree with Wolfe that “a measured and theocratic Caesarism – the prince as a world-shaker for our time” is needed.
The Order of Love
St. Augustine defines order as “the distribution which allots things equal and unequal, each to its own place” (City of God, 19.13), and virtue as ordo amoris, ordering the affections so that everything is accorded the degree of love which is appropriate to it. This is what leads Rushdoony, for example, to conclude that even believers can be unequally yoked. It’s why we have a hierarchy rather than a level plane of duties. Kinists, who recognize that misplacing these duties leads to chaos rather than order, are constantly trying to get their adversaries to stop ignoring or denying such fundamental principles, or kicking them down the road in the hope that they can avoid them.
Doug Wilson writes: “I have far more in common with Nigerian Anglican women who love Christ than I do with white conservative American men who don’t.” Recall the question that Wilson asked Wolfe about whether natural affections extend beyond one’s parents to one’s grandparents and great-grandparents. This is designed to imply that a Christian’s religious similarity to foreigners supersede tribal loyalties.
Thomas Achord, on the excellent Ars Politica podcast that he shares with Stephen Wolfe, responded to Wilson brilliantly on this point by observing that Wilson’s disordered profession of love is purely theoretical, not practical in the slightest. He does nothing to, for, with, or on behalf of his theoretical Nigerian Anglican woman, with whom he claims to have so much in common. He has far more in common with his descendants, even if they aren’t Christians, than theoretical foreign Christians. He has far more in common with his own countrymen, even those who aren’t saved, and they directly benefit from his works, charity, proximity, etc., and he directly benefits from them. Achord is correct that American Christians are the only people in the world who sit around agonizing over whether their countrymen deserve more of their love than strangers overseas.
Many ties—ties of blood, of citizenship, of ethical aims, of humanitarian endeavor—unite us to those who have abandoned the gospel. We trust that those ties may never be weakened, and that ultimately they may serve some purpose in the propagation of the Christian faith.
J. Gresham Machen, Christianity & Liberalism
See Augustine’s letter 263, paragraph 7:
But the relation of strangers is not the same as that of persons bound together in a society. A relation with a believer is not the same as that with a non-believer. The relation of parents to their children is not the same as that of children to their parents. Finally, still other is the relation of husband and wife, which we should especially bear in mind in these matters, where a married woman may not say, ‘I do what I want with what is mine,’ since she does not belong to herself but to her head, that is, to her husband.
In Letter 243, paragraph 12, Augustine drives home the practical duties of properly-ordered love, that priority is owed to one’s blood relations over strangers:
Of course, if your share of the family property, in whose management it is neither necessary nor proper that you be involved, includes some cash, it really should be given to your mother and to the others in your family. Their needs should certainly hold first place in your eyes if, in order to be perfect, you have decided to distribute such money to the poor. For, if anyone, the apostle says, does not provide for his own and especially for the members of his family, he has denied the faith and is worse than a non-believer (1 Tim. 5:8)… If you have a well-ordered love, you should know how to prefer more important to less important things and to be touched by mercy in order that the gospel may be preached to the poor. Otherwise, the bountiful harvest of the Lord may fall prey to birds through a lack of workers.
Darrell Dow and Thomas Achord explore this important matter of ordered affections in great depth in their excellent book, Who is My Neighbor? It bears directly on the question of who we are, and our need to relate and belong to a defined people, when our enemies are determined to erase the definitions, and impastors are aiding and abetting them.
The Science of Love
There’s no question that white liberals have formed a suicide cult, and no one has been saying this louder than Kinists. What anti-Kinists do you know who distribute charts like these to prove the point?
This science reveals a horrifying racial quality among whites specifically, an Alienist susceptibility that has been called pathological altruism. Roger Scruton called it oikophobia, the fear or distaste for one’s own home, family, and people. Kipling’s poem, The Beginnings, was written in formal acknowledgment of this trait.
Wolfe covers this suicide cult in his book:
Western man is enamored with his ideology of universality; it is the chief and only ground of his self-regard. His in-group is all people—it is a universal in-group. Everyone is an object of his beneficence. But in perverse fashion he is his own in-group’s out-group. The object of his regard is the non-Westerner at the Westerner’s expense—a bizarre self-denigration rooted in guilt and malaise. Loss and humiliation is the point, however. It is euphoric to him; his own degradation is thrilling. This is his psycho-sexual ethno-masochism, the most pernicious illness of the Western mind.
As we all know, “Western” = White. No one else in the world acts like this. Implying that “Western” means anything other than white is obfuscation. Likewise, to Wilson, white liberals are simply liberal, and the white part is merely a social construct, which places him on the same philosophical side as those who believe that male and female are sexual constructs. If white liberals evince a slave morality, Wilson blames it on “pathetic gods,” which is partially true but doesn’t explain why white liberals stand alone in the world in having greater out-group than in-group preference.
And white self-loathing alone doesn’t account for the well-funded and well-organized cabal who are flooding the borders with non-whites on purpose, whose hatred of Jesus Christ has consumed them for millennia, and who have been quite successful at cutting the white American population in half in fifty years. These people have faces and names, and calling them (((white people))) ignores the most significant aspect of their self-identity.
Love According to Wilson
I still have an occasional laugh when I think about Wilson declaring that he would have disciplined Lester Maddox for doing what was perfectly legal until the 1964 Civil Rights Act, which was based on the illegal 14th Amendment, namely business owners employing whom they wished and refusing service to whom they wished. I’m sure everyone who engaged in this foul enterprise of freedom during the preceding 357 years of American history would be amused by Wilson’s scriptural reasoning. That Wilson considers free association to be sinful is not really a laughing matter though; it’s a disgusting and irresponsible abuse of his self-appointed office. At least he’s not angering certain (((family members))) by condemning usury, as all Christians used to do.
Obviously, Wilson is not capable of playing his public role as the Mrs. Jellyby of the Palouse while actually rejecting the natural affections of kinship that are innate to the human condition. His solution, such as it is, has been to escape his native Maryland and ensconce himself in the fifth-whitest state, Idaho (90.7% white versus Maine’s 92%), from which he can pontificate on race as a fictional construct. From Idaho, he can agree with Jew Ben Shapiro that the “browning of America” doesn’t matter, because only ideas matter if everyone you see around you looks like you.
If you reject race, then you reject America as it has really existed throughout its history, and whatever you mean by “America” has to come from something other than its real past.
And Wilson has made a good living by selling his Professor Marvel act to those who desperately want to believe that we’re not being suffocated from existence by a hostile and foreign elite whose most effective weapon against us has been forced demographic change, for which no one has voted. No, Wilson has no need to concern himself with the devastating consequences of his ideology, and if you happen to be one of the unfortunate souls who has been boiled alive in Israel Zangwill’s melting pot, it just means that you haven’t run as far from your troubles as Douglas Gump has. Perhaps you haven’t voted for enough Republicans. Perhaps you haven’t visited enough hollowcost shrines. Perhaps you haven’t read enough postmillennial books.
At any rate, Wilson has proved that fiction is lucrative. And yet the stubborn facts refuse to budge, and the questions persist that Wilson refuses to answer. Could Wilson produce historical evidence that any nation that has lost control of its demographic majority has both retained its territory and its principles of government? Is there a single example to be found in all of human history? Has any such nation or empire ever been able to retain its Christian traditions? Has a Christian nation ever existed that pretends racial heritage is irrelevant to property, government, inheritance, and the protection of customs and institutions? Is there a church to be found anywhere in the world that has severed itself from the bonds of kinship, in which the founding stock has been replaced by random transients, and the church has survived solely on a faith-is-all-that-matters ethic? The questions answer themselves.
Consider this chart showing where most self-professing Christians can be found in the world.
Obviously, that last column is strictly nominal. As the white population of the GAE has declined, so has Christian faith. We’re becoming very much like Brazil and Mexico in our demographics, which, let it be noted, our ancestors resisted with all their might, and they are the ones who created the civilization that all the world covets, which is now in rapid decline. If you look at a chart like this and believe that race and IQ are irrelevant to the difference between China and Congo, you are hopelessly deluded. You’re the kind of person who would have followed Jim Jones to Guyana.
What we’ve learned through this exercise is that Doug Wilson refuses to recognize organized racial warfare, because it’s just generic sinfulness, you see, except that in his opinion, “minorities” have been co-opted by “white people.” But when Jews co-opt the entire Rainbow Coalition for their hostile purposes against whites, Wilson looks up at the sky and wonders aloud if the soybeans will get enough rain.
It’s the same escape hatch that Matt Walsh took recently at a Judeo-conservative “simposium” when, hot off the success of his documentary What is a Woman?, he was asked if he is willing to name the parasites who are behind the coordinated effort to spread gender ideology, seeing as how all such institutions are being funded by people with names like Cohen and Stein. Now, that seems logical, right? After all, the documentary, funded by wunderkind Ben Shapiro, has for its title a question with an equally obvious answer. As Christians, we’re all about clarity; some of us, anyway. But because of who funded the documentary, it features a Jewish psychologist who blames the problem of transsexualism on Alfred Kinsey and John Money, and never even mentions Jew Magnus Hirschfeld, who pioneered the perversion. (By the way, Hirschfeld, like Wilson, wanted to entirely do away with the concept of race, and was an open advocate of miscegenation. One of the earliest uses of the word “racism” came from his 1933 German book, Racismus, that was translated to English in 1938.) Naturally, the neocon audience booed the questioner for his impertinence. “Am I going to do anything about the Jews?” Walsh asked his microphone. “Uh, no. Do I need to dignify that with a further response?” Walsh was already naming culprits, at least from an approved list; he just didn’t want to spin the dreidel. He knows that what keeps him employed is to ignore the same obvious facts that Wilson ignores.
Shortly afterwards, Kanye West was canceled by his bank and Big Tech. To date, he has lost billions in merchandise revenue, as Adidas, Gap, and many other corporations have followed the lead of the banks and canceled their business deals with him. And all this for expressing opinions that the deicides find disagreeable. Sarah Silverman, Jamie Lee Curtis, and others who are pedigreed in Wikipedia’s “early life” section, blamed this on white people, of course.
After all, nothing says “Jewish influence on banking is an anti-Semitic lie” quite like banks banning famous people for criticizing Jews. Curtis, who now calls her mentally-ill son a woman, demanded that West’s children be taken from him.
As J.R.R. Tolkien wrote in Candour Magazine (July 13, 1956):
The true equation is “democracy” = government by world financiers… The main mark of modern governments is that we do not know who governs, de facto any more than de jure. We see the politician and not his backer; still less the backer of the backer; or what is most important of all, the banker of the backer. Enthroned above all, in a manner without parallel in all past, is the veiled prophet of finance, swaying all men living by a sort of magic, and delivering oracles in a language not [understood by] the people.
West is a “Black Hebrew Israelite” who believes that Margaret Sanger and the KKK had the goal of killing “Jews” (meaning blacks, or in his words, “the twelve lost tribes of Judah, the blood of Christ”). And he told Tucker Carlson that Jew Jared Kushner is motivated only by profit. But what got him canceled was when he and Candace Owens wore the words “White Lives Matter” (words that have now been banned as “hate speech” by Tiktok and Apple’s Siri, following the direction of the ADL). He said the Jewish founder of Los Angeles Apparel refused to print the shirts, and wanted him to go to a “holocaust” museum, presumably to enlist him in the war that Judea declared against Germany in 1933. West told the circle-signer to visit Planned Parenthood: “That’s our holocaust museum.” Jews everywhere interpreted West’s opinion that white lives do, in fact, matter as a “threat” and a call for “violence” against Jews, because some people just can’t be criticized.
The last thing our pulpit pirates want is the Kanye West treatment, though this is precisely what they would receive as retaliation for a faithful witness. This has been a fascinating development, because West serves as a sort of “Balaam’s Ass” who speaks when the prophets are too blind to see.
So far, West doesn’t appear to care that they’re doing everything they can to impoverish him. He simply refuses to be their slave, and we applaud his courage. How many of us could do the same?
It’s easy to predict that if West wants a career again, he will have to make a pilgrimage to what is called a holocaust museum – or more appropriately, The Ministry of Peace, Truth, Love, and Plenty. Here’s an interesting thought. If we had Jewish Supremacy instead of White Supremacy, and West criticized George Washington, would he be sent to the Smithsonian instead?
Anyway, when Matt Walsh reported on West’s high-tech lynching, he tried to appease both his Jewish boss and his audience by referring not to what West actually said but rather to vague “controversial statements.” It was a tightrope act that even Doug Wilson and his entire staff, who are so adept at the deceptive art of triangulation, must admire, but it means that we’re all less-informed as we plod like cattle towards the great Noahide future that awaits us.
Keeping us misinformed (while outlawing what they call “misinformation” and “disinformation”) is the goal of the Orwellian media. When thousands of white girls were raped and trafficked in Rotherham, England, the homo-police applied the Wilson/Walsh social sciences to the scandal and looked the other way. And in the end, hardly anyone was punished for it. How can there be racial warfare and exploitation when race doesn’t exist? Needless to say, this is not what happens in Korea, where white men are guilty of a third of all rapes, despite being less than one percent of the population. Some people actually love their own kind.
There is obviously much more that can be said about the assumption that one race is immune from criticism while another can’t even be considered worthy enough to matter. But we all know that we can’t rely on cowards to reveal the truth, and we certainly can’t rely on them to help restore what pestilence has devoured.
We’re faced with a difficult challenge in our time, and it’s easy to understand why so many are lost and demoralized on matters that were instinctive to our fathers. We’re trying to turn a battleship, not a rowboat, and it takes time. But there’s simply no excuse for ministers of the gospel who are helping anti-Christs rebuild Babel.
No Kinist believes that only whites can be saved. We are glad to fellowship with anyone, if honor is reciprocated. We seek alliances of all kinds, but all who aim to dispossess us and our allies will meet with strong resistance.
We reject the Marxist conception of racial relations held by all Cuckold-Christians. We reject the assertion that Jews are white except for when whites are blamed for deceiving and exploiting blacks. We deny that borders should be open as a missionary work. We deny that nationality is merely propositional. We deny that everyone should intermarry because race doesn’t really exist. We excommunicate the cucks for having added a secret amendment to their confessions, that the Bolshevik Revolution taught the church how to finally and properly understand social bonds (as accidents of nature to serve the engineers of democracy and capitalism). We laugh and make memes when we see them pointing and sputtering about ol’ debbil racism, and hear their cries to “root Kinism out of the church, because Kinists sound like my grandparents!”
And what I am doing I will continue to do, in order to undermine the claim of those who would like to claim that in their boasted mission they work on the same terms as we do.