By Davis Carlton

I’ve been involved with several online discussions regarding how Christians ought to forgive those who sin against them, and the catalyst for these discussions has been the Charlie Kirk assassination and his widow, Erika Kirk’s, stating that she forgives her late husband’s assassin at his memorial service. These discussions have often been passionate and interesting, and I’d like to offer my thoughts. I’m of the opinion that Christians are not called to forgive those who have wronged them in the absence of repentance. I’d like to explain and defend my reasoning for my conclusions.

To begin with I want to make it clear that this should absolutely not be construed as an attack upon Erika Kirk. She is a grieving widow that witnessed the brutal murder of her husband and who is now tasked with raising her two children without their father. While I disagree with some of what she has said and done, I have no desire to attack her personally. Erika Kirk, her children, and her family have been and will continue to be in my prayers and I wish nothing but the best for them. My comments are intended to shed light on the subject of forgiveness that has been made a topic of discussion because of Erika Kirk’s forgiveness of her husband’s assassin.

My position is that forgiveness is somewhat distinct from reconciliation, but is always oriented toward reconciliation. Forgiveness is defined in different ways by Noah Webster in his original 1828 dictionary. Forgiveness carries with it the notion of the granting of pardon and clearing the offending party of guilt. In order to achieve reconciliation, the offending party must demonstrate contrition for the offense in acknowledging what happened and that it was wrong. I have seen arguments that Christians must always forgive those who sin against them regardless of whether or not the offending party is sorrowful or repentant. The Biblical argument made in defense of this position is based upon the teaching and example of Jesus as well as the Proto-Martyr Stephen.

Some argue that Jesus taught unconditional forgiveness in Matthew 18:21-22, in which we are told; “Then came Peter to him, and said, Lord, how oft shall my brother sin against me, and I forgive him? till seven times? Jesus saith unto him, I say not unto thee, Until seven times: but, Until seventy times seven.” Another place is Mark 11:25-26 in which Jesus says, “And when ye stand praying, forgive, if ye have ought against any: that your Father also which is in heaven may forgive you your trespasses. But if ye do not forgive, neither will your Father which is in heaven forgive your trespasses.” Additionally, Jesus is said to teach unconditional forgiveness in the Lord’s Prayer/Our Father with the petition, “Forgive us our trespasses as we forgive those who trespass against us.” Jesus is also said to have put the principle of unconditional forgiveness into practice on the Cross during his own Crucifixion when he cries out, “Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do” (Luke 23:34). This posture of forgiveness is also echoed by St. Stephen during his own martyrdom when he prays; “Lord, lay not this sin to their charge” (Acts 7:60).

These arguments are formidable indeed, and they must be addressed with the utmost care befitting of God’s word. The first counter-argument that I would make against unconditional forgiveness is that there are many places in which Jesus seems to teach forgiveness conditioned upon repentance. The most obvious of these is in Luke 17:3-4 in which Jesus states; “Take heed to yourselves: If thy brother trespass against thee, rebuke him; and if he repent, forgive him. And if he trespass against thee seven times in a day, and seven times in a day turn again to thee, saying, I repent; thou shalt forgive him.” This seems straightforward enough. Jesus does not command or expect His disciples to forgive those who offend them when the offending party does not show remorse or attempt reconciliation. In response to this some contend that Jesus’s teaching here only applies to brothers, “If thy brother trespass against thee…” rather than the more general prescription in Mark 11:25-26, which seems to require unconditional forgiveness. How are we to resolve this?

There are a couple of things to consider. First, we can acknowledge that Jesus’s statement in Luke 17 is given to provide for the reconciliation of brothers, while His statement in Mark seems more general. That being said, I don’t think that this establishes the principle of unconditional forgiveness for a few reasons. The first is that this interpretation destroys the ‘if/then’ logic of Jesus’s statement in Luke 17. Suppose a professed Christian commits a truly heinous act against a fellow believer by murdering his son. The offended Christian is righteously indignant and demands that justice be done and that the offending brother repent in order to work toward reconciliation. The offender refuses, obstinately insisting that what he did wasn’t wrong, that the victim deserved to die, or insisting upon his innocence in spite of compelling evidence to the contrary (eyewitnesses, etc.). It would certainly seem that the criterion given by Jesus pertaining to the reconciliation of brothers in Luke 17 has not been made. The offending brother has not repented, and therefore the offended Christian is not to forgive him.

But this is where the waters can be muddied. Suppose the clergy of the offending professed Christian rightly conclude from his impenitence and lack of remorse that he is not actually a Christian brother at all, and excommunicate him in accordance with Jesus’s teaching in Matthew 18, particularly verse 17 which teaches to treat the impenitent as a “heathen and a publican.” Would this then mean that Jesus’s teaching in Luke 17 no longer applies since he is not actually a brother and that the “unconditional forgiveness” supposedly taught in Mark 11 now apply, and the offended Christian, whose son was murdered, must now forgive the false brother in spite of his obstinate impenitence? I don’t think that this is a tenable option, seeing as it would entirely destroy the ‘if/then’ logic that Jesus uses in Luke 17. This means that those who propose that Jesus taught unconditional forgiveness in Mark 11 must not correctly understand what that passage means.

So when Jesus says, “And when ye stand praying, forgive, if ye have ought (or anything) against any: that your Father also which is in heaven may forgive you your trespasses. But if ye do not forgive, neither will your Father which is in heaven forgive your trespasses,” what exactly does He mean? The context seems to be about someone who is asking God for forgiveness in prayer while still bearing grudges against those who have wronged him. The same would apply to the petition in the Lord’s Prayer in which we are to ask God to “forgive us our trespasses.” The assumption made in the petition is that we have forgiven and will forgive those “who trespass against us.” It would be entirely hypocritical to expect God to forgive us while we refuse to forgive others. This is particularly illustrated in the Parable of the Unforgiving Steward at the end of Matthew 18, in which Jesus contrasts the enormity of debt that sinners have in relation to God in comparison to the relatively minor debt that sinners have in relation to each other.

Another consideration that we should make in our interpretation of Mark 11:25-26 is that there are likely implied qualifications that aren’t stated in this particular instance. Immediately preceding His statement on forgiveness Jesus says: “Have faith in God. For verily I say unto you, That whosoever shall say unto this mountain, Be thou removed, and be thou cast into the sea; and shall not doubt in his heart, but shall believe that those things which he saith shall come to pass; he shall have whatsoever he saith. Therefore I say unto you, What things soever ye desire, when ye pray, believe that ye receive them, and ye shall have them” (Mark 11:22-24).

Jesus’s words seem to clearly indicate that believers will receive whatever they ask of God in faith. It is this passage that “faith healers” often allude to defend their false practice of “healing,” and suggesting that whenever their “healing” inevitably fails, the lack of faith of the subject is always blamed. Most orthodox Christians understand that there are implied qualifications in what Jesus is saying. Jesus is speaking of God’s infinite power to enable His disciples to do whatever they are called to do in God’s providence. Consequently a truly faithful believer doesn’t treat this passage in a “name it and claim it” fashion, but always submits his desires to the will of God as he prays, “Thy will be done.” John adds the additional clarification when he writes, “And this is the confidence that we have in him, that, if we ask any thing according to his will, he heareth us” (1 John 5:14). Just as Christians ought to recognize the implied qualifications in Jesus’s statement that we will obtain whatever we ask of God in faith, we also must realize the implied qualifications in Jesus’s statement about forgiveness immediately following.

But what of the examples of Jesus and Stephen, who seemed to have prayed to God for the pardon of their enemies when they were being martyred? There are a couple of reasons that I don’t think that this constitutes “unconditional forgiveness.” Defiant Baptist has pointed out on X that asking God to forgive someone isn’t the same as personally forgiving. This might seem like a meaningless distinction, but I think that Defiant Baptist has made an accurate observation. When Jesus and Stephen ask God to forgive, they are in essence asking God to grant those sinning against them the gift of repentance so that they can receive divine forgiveness. The reason that Jesus and Stephen likely prayed as they did before their deaths is to communicate that they would willingly forgive and be reconciled to anyone who came to regret their wickedness later on, after their deaths made it impossible to reconcile face to face. That repentance is an unmerited divine gift is established in Acts 5:31, 11:18, and 2 Timothy 2:25.

There are reasons that the prayers of Jesus and Stephen cannot amount to “unconditional forgiveness.” The first is particular to the case of Jesus, Who is the second Person of the Trinity and thus God the Son. During the raising of Lazarus, Jesus proved His divine status when He prayed by appealing to His unique relationship to the Father by saying, “I knew that thou hearest me always: but because of the people which stand by I said it, that they may believe that thou hast sent me” (John 11:42). Jesus then raises Lazarus in order to demonstrate His position before the Father as an infallible intercessor. Jesus also demonstrates this principle in His prayer for Simon Peter that he would overcome the temptation of the Devil and strengthen his brethren when he recovered the fullness of his faith and repented for his denial during Jesus’s trial.

“And the Lord said, Simon, Simon, behold, Satan hath desired to have you, that he may sift you as wheat: But I have prayed for thee, that thy faith fail not: and when thou art converted, strengthen thy brethren” (Luke 22:31-32). If Jesus was asking God to forgive those who remained impenitent, and God did not forgive them, then this would undermine Jesus’s claims to divinity and perfect fellowship with the Father, creating incoherence within the Trinity. This would be the case whether one believes that Christ’s request was limited to the Romans who acted in ignorance (“they know not what they do”) or if this also includes Jews who failed to grasp the severity of what they were doing, as Peter seems to argue on the day of Pentecost (“And now, brethren, I wot [I know] that through ignorance ye did it, as did also your rulers.” Acts 3:17).

This leads to the second reason that Jesus and Stephen weren’t practicing “unconditional forgiveness.” If Jesus and Stephen were asking God to forgive impenitent sinners, they would be asking God to do something entirely contrary to His nature of holiness and justice. God “will by no means clear the guilty” (Exodus 34:7/Numbers 14:18). Wise King Solomon tells us, “He that justifieth the wicked, and he that condemneth the just, even they both are abomination to the Lord” (Proverbs 17:15). This is true even if one justifies the wickedness done to ourselves or our loved ones. This is contrasted with the manner in which God justifies the ungodly by the imputation of Christ’s righteousness through faith and repentance (Rom. 4:5). This is consistent with the Apostle John teaching, “If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness” (1 John 1:9).

The problem with the “unconditional forgiveness” view is that it posits a higher standard of forgiveness than what God practices, and unintentionally downplays the severity of sin. Sometimes skeptics of Christianity ask why Jesus needed to die for the sins of mankind when God could have just chosen to forgive our sins. The orthodox response is that God’s justice demands punishment, and that this punishment was willingly taken upon Himself by Jesus on the cross and applied through faith and repentance. The view that repentance is necessary for forgiveness aligns with the Biblical teaching on the nature of forgiveness.

While I don’t believe that we can properly forgive without the offender repenting of his sin, I don’t think that we ought to be too hard on those who say that they forgive those who have sinned against them without repenting. Many times when people say that they forgive those who have harmed them or their loved ones, it means that they are offering forgiveness. Indeed, this is the third definition that Noah Webster gave in his dictionary: “Disposition to pardon; willingness to forgive.” That being said, it is important that a willingness to forgive, however stated, should not conflict with Christian justice. A murderer may be forgiven of his murder, but he is still liable for the civil consequence of his having committed murder and the Bible is clear that this is the death penalty. This particular error seems to afflict too many Christians, and an example of this is Erika Kirk’s recent comments that she would somehow be culpable if she advocated for the death penalty for her late husband’s killer.

While being interviewed, Erika Kirk stated, “I’ve had so many people ask, ‘Do you feel anger toward this man? Like, do you want to seek the death penalty?’ I’ll be honest. I told our lawyer, I want the government to decide this,” she explained. “I do not want that man’s blood on my ledger. Because when I get to heaven, and Jesus is like: ‘Uh, eye for an eye? Is that how we do it?’ And that keeps me from being in heaven, from being with Charlie?”

This is unfortunate. I will reiterate that I have no intention of being cruel to a grieving widow. This is the kind of error that is symptomatic of a larger cultural problem of counterfeit forgiveness that seeks therapeutic closure without the demands of justice. Advocating for civil justice does not violate the principle of Christian forgiveness and does not violate what Jesus taught about the “eye for an eye” principle in the Sermon on the Mount. Jesus begins His sermon by clearly stating that He is not overthrowing the standard of justice established in the Law of Moses: “Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill. For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.” (Matthew 5:17-19).

Jesus then proceeds to correct false impressions of the Law that had begun to circulate and would later be codified in the Talmud. For example, people had begun to teach that the principle of “eye for an eye” taught in the Mosaic Law as the standard of justice (Exodus 21:24, Leviticus 24:20, Deuteronomy 19:21) justified the taking of vengeance against a man’s personal enemies. This doesn’t represent a fundamental change in ethics because the Mosaic Law and wisdom literature already commanded a man to love his personal enemies (Exodus 23:4; Proverbs 24:17-18, 25:21-22).

Of course no one argues that these principles taught in the Old Testament somehow nullify or contradict the just demand for the death penalty where it is applicable. Forgiveness isn’t opposed on principle to appropriate vengeance: “thou wast a God that forgavest them, though thou tookest vengeance of their inventions” (Psalm 99:8). For someone to demand the death penalty for the murderer of one of their loved ones is not the misapplication of the “eye for an eye” principle that Jesus is addressing. It is possible to exercise Christian forgiveness, which entails not seeking personal vengeance as vengeance belongs to God (Romans 12:19). This doesn’t negate the fact that God has instituted civil government for being the agents of His justice (Romans 13:1-4).

Christ’s teaching on forgiveness remains a “hard saying.” While forgiveness proper is not possible without repentance, as Christians we must always be willing to forgive those who sin against us, pursue reconciliation, and refuse to take vengeance into our own hands. We need to always be ready and willing to pursue reconciliation (Matthew 5:21-26). Jesus condemns those who refuse to forgive and are angry with brothers without a cause, but this obviously doesn’t apply to those who persist in evil and refuse to repent and thus demonstrate that they are not brothers at all.

What is the proper attitude towards those who purposely wrong us with no remorse or desire for reconciliation? If you believe that Christians must forgive everyone all the time without exception, then the answer is Christians must forgive even when reconciliation isn’t possible. But this doesn’t seem to be what the Apostle Paul does regarding Alexander the Coppersmith. In what might seem like an offhand comment in a personal letter, Paul writes, “Alexander the coppersmith did me much evil: the Lord reward him according to his works” (2 Timothy 4:14). Paul acknowledges that Alexander has wronged Paul and doesn’t seem to be interested in repentance or reconciliation, because in the very next verse Paul instructs Timothy to be aware of Alexander, indicating that he remains a threat. It is clear that Paul isn’t overly bitter or hateful towards Alexander. Paul hasn’t taken it upon himself to exact personal vengeance against Alexander. Instead Paul commends Alexander to God’s justice. Is this forgiveness? I don’t believe so, as forgiveness is always extended and granted as a means of accomplishing reconciliation.

The idea that forgiveness is not unconditional was taught by the great Christian pastor and apologist Greg Bahnsen, as Mark Rushdoony has recently posted on Facebook. Ardel Caneday also makes a compelling case in his brief booklet, Must Christians Always Forgive? I think that Caneday makes a good argument, demonstrating that “unconditional forgiveness” inadvertently undermines God’s grace, mercy, and justice. I also agree with Caneday that Christians must always be willing and eager to forgive, but must also be insistent that actual forgiveness can only be extended with true repentance. It is important that Christians get this issue correct because several people who notice how unjust our godless world has become rightly see the unconditional forgiveness extended by Christian victims as weak and performative.

Many Christians act as though they are willing and even eager to allow grave injustices to stand in order to appease those who hate us. Unfortunately, many celebrity Christians and pastors don’t care about justice when bad things happen to fellow Christians and/or white people (I’m thinking of Austin Metcalf’s father immediately forgiving his son’s black murderer, but there are other examples of this as well).

These false teachings about forgiveness and just retribution have proven a stumbling block to young men who are led to believe that these aberrant miscarriages of justice are consistent with what Christianity actually teaches. Christian leaders must boldly proclaim the truth about Christian forgiveness. As Christians we must always be ready to forgive, but also equally zealous for justice, lest we continue to prove this observation by King Solomon so very relevant in our lawless days: “Because sentence against an evil work is not executed speedily, therefore the heart of the sons of men is fully set in them to do evil” (Ecclesiastes 8:11).

The dust seems to have settled from the debate over Black sanctification between Corey Mahler and James White that took place earlier this summer. I doubt that many minds were changed, as I believe that most people are likely to believe that “their guy” won. I don’t like the framing of the debate as Mahler seemed to be disadvantaged by the premise of the debate. The debate was over whether or not God could theoretically sanctify Blacks in general to the same extent as Whites. Mahler was tasked with trying to defend the notion that nature somehow limits God’s ability to extend grace.

I think that Mahler actually did a decent job of trying to re-frame the debate during cross examination in which he pointed out to White that God cannot do the metaphysically impossible like ceasing to exist or be God, and that there are things that He hypothetically could do, but nevertheless typically chooses not to do this side of eternity. This includes things like miraculous healings or giving mankind the ability to fly. James White had little patience for this line of questioning as he seemed to miss the points that Corey Mahler was raising and insisted that Mahler’s questions were off topic.

White seemed to concede Mahler’s point that the races are not presently equally sinful or conversely, equally sanctified. White and his ilk might be irritated by the statistics that Mahler brought to the debate, but the reality behind them went unchallenged. Most Christians aren’t particularly bothered by the suggestion that people are sinful or holy to varying degrees. What is controversial is the observation that the degree of sinfulness or sanctity seems to correlate with racial differences. Most modern American Christians desire to treat people as individuals, with any broad trends being dismissed as mere happenstance. But this doesn’t seem to comport with the fact that the prophets frequently address nations of people as a collective whole. It also is too far removed from our collective common experiences. Whatever the causes of racial differences, the differences themselves are undeniably real.

This naturally leads any reasonable inquirer to ask why the races are different in terms of their present sanctity and proclivity towards sin. It’s certainly plausible that at least some of these differences are rooted in biology based upon the differences in our physical genes, but another factor that needs consideration is that these differences are located in the soul. Many Christians today seem to believe that the soul is a de novo, generically human creation of God made at the conception of a new human baby. But Christianity has a proud tradition of affirming traducianism, which is the belief that the human soul, like the physical body, is created from the parents of a child. This of course has implications for how we understand the inheritance of different traits or characteristics. We can demonstrate that many things like intelligence and personality are heritable, and traducianism seems to provide us with additional explanatory power in accounting for these differences. This can also help us to explain what the Germans describe as the volksgeist or the spirit of a particular people.

This seems like a likely explanation for racial and ethnic differences in things such as proclivities to certain vices or conversely, to virtue. The reality of race is consistently born out in things like crime statistics. Aside from the penchant of blacks and, to a lesser extent, Hispanics towards violent crime, this also explains the Oriental/East Asian proclivity towards collectivist totalitarianism. All of this is consistent with the soul being inherited from parents who in turn inherited their traits from their ancestors. I believe that a corollary to this is that it is entirely possible for racial sanctification to occur by virtue of the Holy Spirit being poured out onto a particular people. Regeneration works directly on the soul in a way that the body is usually not affected. For example, repentance and conversion almost never results in a man re-growing or healing amputated limbs, but it can and at least in time should help someone overcome their sinful habits. The result of this conversion, if it were to happen on a large scale, would presumably benefit future generations as well.

The result of mass conversion of blacks would result in repentance of violence, egalitarian envy, and sexual promiscuity. Similarly, the conversion of Jews would necessarily result in their repentance of their hatred of God, acceptance of Jesus as Messiah and God incarnate, as well as their repentance for subversion of European Christian countries. The re-conversion of whites to Christianity would lead to repentance for our playing the part of Esau and the selling of our birthright to those who hate us in order to secure momentary material comfort. Those who profess Christianity and yet live just like the world are almost certainly making a false profession of faith. This means that the Christianity of many black churches is discernibly false.

The spiritual benefits of conversion in which the dead works of the flesh are mortified and the fruit of the Spirit is produced would be more immediate than changing other aspects of a people’s nature that have been affected by sin and the Fall. Race realists are absolutely correct to point out that Christian conversion doesn’t heal physical wounds, make you smarter, better at sports, more proficient at musical performance and composition, or better at creating art, architecture, literature, etc. But does this mean that abilities are absolutely static? I’ve ruminated on this topic for a while and an acquaintance that I’ve interacted with on Facebook named Keon Garraway mentioned a concept that we could call “inter-generational sanctification.”

The premise is simple enough. As a group of people is converted to Christianity and given time to bear the fruit of the Holy Spirit, this will impact them beyond the immediate benefits of their initial conversion. As genuine Christians, they would value Biblical justice which punishes violent crime swiftly without showing favoritism to protected classes who are not considered culpable due to their unfortunate circumstances (Ex. 23:3/Lev. 19:15). The other side of the coin is that these new Christians would reject egalitarian envy that serves as the foundation for false “social justice” while learning to highly esteem the superior members of the group. This would have a eugenic effect upon the overall population, with benefits spanning far beyond the first generation converts.

How would this impact black people for example, which at present seem to occupy the bottom of the racial totem pole by many metrics? We could imagine that conversion would make black Christians stop sympathizing with thugs and murderers, stop glorifying fornication and sexual degeneracy, and start valuing hard work and honesty. The result would be that a good many blacks, genuine converts or otherwise, would face true Biblical justice when they transgress God’s Law. This means that residual inclinations to violence would be gradually bred out of the black gene pool as violent offenders would be forcibly removed.

The converse would also be true. Members of the “talented tenth” or the top ten percent of the black population would be esteemed for their God-given talents and abilities. They would be encouraged to exercise and invest their time, talent, and treasure for the betterment of their people as a whole. They would be encouraged to marry and be fruitful and multiply. Both the removal of degenerates and the proliferation of those with the greatest aptitude among them will have a benefit that is realized after many generations. This understanding of sanctification of the races avoids the pitfalls of believing pious egalitarian platitudes that don’t ultimately originate from Scripture or comport with reality.

Christians can take different positions on the likelihood of this happening prior to the return of Christ, and differences will likely reflect how one views eschatology. The overall point is that God can indeed sanctify the different races. There is no question that any Christian of goodwill naturally will desire this to happen. Ironically, well-meaning Christians espouse policies that have hindered genuine progress for the advancement of blacks and other non-whites. Mass migration to America and Europe, among other problems, has created a “brain drain” in Africa and other non-white lands as the most capable non-whites seek greater economic prosperity abroad rather than applying their talents to improving the conditions of their ancestral homelands.

The common practice for black men who achieve economic success to marry white women also typically demonstrates a selfish concern for moving up the social ladder rather than taking a wife from their own people. Social taboos against miscegenation benefit all races, but in particular would benefit blacks by requiring them to marry and propagate thoroughbred lines of capable black descendants. Even W.E.B. DuBois, himself a mixed-race black man who popularized the phrase, “talented tenth”, worried that the talented tenth would miscegenate rather than marry back into the black population. Finally, integration had the unintended consequence of killing off fledgling black businesses and institutions like Negro League baseball in which blacks had a unique ownership stake.

The best thing for black sanctification and advancement after they genuinely receive the Gospel would be to encourage and perhaps eventually require (at least to some extent) their repatriation back to Africa and/or other areas that are designated for black settlement, where they can assume the responsibility for creating a society based upon the principles of God’s Law expressed in a uniquely African context. This will allow black Christians to take ownership of their successes and failures and learn from past mistakes. Many who align with the positions espoused by Samuel Sey and James White in their debates with Corey Mahler seem to care about taking the more comfortable approach of promoting egalitarianism and avoiding the very real racial problems that everyone faces, rather than fleshing out what black sanctification must entail and what must happen for it to be accomplished. By promoting a healthy sense of racial identity, white Christian ethno-nationalists can authentically love and respect our black neighbors. “Faithful are the wounds of a friend; but the kisses of an enemy are deceitful” (Prov. 27:6).

Recently James White has expressed disgust with those who anonymously criticize him online. White was particularly irked by a user going by Defiant Baptist on X joking about White’s banter regarding Doug Wilson, suggesting that it sounded gay. Others have commented about some of White’s fashion choices regarding the sweaters he wears while recording the Dividing Line. White has suggested that men who maintain online social media accounts ought to be “doxxed.” Rich Pierce of Alpha & Omega Ministries has echoed this sentiment as well as suggesting that the church’s clergy and elders be aware of all of their members’ social media activity. White’s justification for doxxing online anons is that the Apostles warned Christians of wolves in sheep’s clothing. This is true enough, but what justifies White’s contention that online anonymous activity is innately serving the purposes of wickedness? Here are a few things that I would like Christians like James White, Rich Pierce and others who are condemning those using pseudonyms to consider.

First, I can safely say that I and most of the others that I follow on X and am friends with on Facebook are genuinely decent people. Their ideological opponents might not think so, but I have interacted with many of these people for years and know them to be good, godly Christian men and women. I believe that the same can be said of many people who disagree with Kinism, Christian Nationalism, or the Dissident Right. I think that those who disagree are wrong, but it wouldn’t justify me damning all Christians who are wrong on this issue to Hell, which is what I have frequently seen from the other side.

I find it odd that most of those opposed to online anons appeal to ecclesiastical oversight and authority as the solution to the problem. Virtually all of our detractors are thorough-going Protestants, so they have no problem in acknowledging that ecclesiastical authorities can be wrong. This should be a given, considering most of the mainstream “conservative” Protestant denominations today are the results of the mainline denominations over the past century succumbing to creeping liberalism. Virtually none of the Baptist detractors of online anons regards the authority of the American Baptist Convention, and many have even pointed out the same problems emerging in the Southern Baptist Convention. The same could be said of Presbyterians regarding the PCUSA, Anglicans regarding the Episcopal Church, Lutherans regarding the ELCA and to an increasing extent the LCMS and WELS. The point is that liberalism has been gaining traction in otherwise ostensibly conservative Christian denominations for at least the past century and a half. These chickens are coming home to roost and we are suffering the consequences.

This isn’t to say that we ought to unnecessarily abuse clergy, or disrespect church authority when it isn’t appropriate, but a core tenet of the Protestant Reformation is that the church is fallible and can err in her judgments, particularly on pastoral issues like church discipline. Churchmen and clergy ought to be above reproach and not given to filthy lucre, but history is filled with examples of clergy being swayed in the wrong direction by impure motives. There are also many examples of clergy who meant well but still managed to get things wrong.

I’m particularly concerned with those who make appeal to the church authority because such appeals commonly come from those who are comfortably established in those very positions of church authority. James White, Joe Boot, Doug Wilson, and Andrew Sandlin condemn anons because they perceive, correctly in many cases, that the majority of elders and pastors agree with them and will readily denounce the Dissident Right as “racists” and bigots. Thus an ecclesiastical crackdown on anonymous posting online serves their interests because those dropping the hammer already agree with the mainstream establishment. This appeal to ecclesiastical authority becomes problematic when the question of historical continuity is raised.

Like it or not, proponents of race realism, ethno-nationalism, and Kinism have historic orthodoxy on our side. There is no doubt that the vast majority of Christians throughout history have agreed with our positions on these relevant issues. Books like Christian Race Realism by Rev. Michael Spangler as well as compendiums such as, Who is My Neighbor? by Dow and Achord make this abundantly clear. When I’m told that I need to submit myself to church leaders for excommunication, I usually ask if they similarly reject men who, like R.L. Dabney, were firmly in our camp.

Usually the response is that men like Dabney were in sin and needed to repent. The problem here is that Dabney was not an anomaly. He is firmly on solid ground when it comes to historic Christian teachings, and Christian stalwarts like him would have rejected the egalitarianism of those boldly proclaiming that they have the monopoly on Christian truth. In other words, anons have legitimately questioned why we should accept the censure of modern elders when these same elders would anathematize the elders of the past, often from their own denomination or theological tradition? Modern pastors and elders condemning the Dissident Right and appealing to their own ecclesiastical authority are essentially sawing off the branches upon which they are sitting.

My suspicion is that those demanding the doxxing of online anons aren’t doing so out of genuine concern for the state of the souls of those who post anonymously, but as a means of silencing critics in the absence of a compelling exegetical case. If Christian nationalism of any variety is wrong or if egalitarianism is true, then it should be easy to demonstrate this from Scripture. The motivation behind doxxing can be presented as a legitimate concern hiding a desire to see the lives of one’s opponents ruined. The reason that doxxing is an effective threat is because of the spirit of the age in which we live. The opinions expressed by many anons on the Dissident Right were mainstream as recently as the close of the Second World War, but have since become utterly anathema in polite society.

I wanted to explain why I maintain a certain amount of online anonymity to provide some clarity and context. I am a married man with children, and I work in a small business. My views, particularly on geo-politics and race, are politically incorrect. Most “normies” would find what I have to say offensive simply because of the level of programming and indoctrination that has conditioned them to think the way that they do. My aim in posting online and writing articles isn’t to use anonymity as a cloak of maliciousness, but to discuss issues that are considered too taboo to be discussed openly without bringing about unnecessarily harsh consequences down upon myself and my family. This shouldn’t be too much to ask.

My friendly advice to pastors and elders demanding the identities of online anons is to do their best at actually engaging opposing arguments. Some posters might merit blocking, but there are several that are crafting their beliefs about race based upon their legitimate experience being confirmed by a rediscovery of older ideas that used to pervade the consensus of Christian thought. Blocking is a temporary band aid and doxxing only works as long as there is enough of a social consensus enforcing political correctness. The Shiloh Hendrix incident demonstrates that whites, especially younger whites are experiencing fatigue with black misbehavior coupled with being told that they are the ones to blame. There is a real risk that clergy of the Baby Boomer generation run of alienating younger generations by refusing to understand their concerns and problems. Ultimately, at the end of the day, reality cannot be blocked on social media or excommunicated by a disapproving elder board.

Ah, springtime. When a young man’s fancy turns to thoughts of….checking out what’s trending online early and often.

Which is no different than how he spends his time the other three seasons of the year, come to think of it. But hey, he might deign to crack a window open this time, and let some of the pervading stale musk out. So let’s give credit where it’s due.

So what exactly is burning up this Online that I’ve heard so much about these days? Why, a polymorphous mass of Newspeak conveying the message that whatever degenerate humanity decrees to be right in its own eyes must be the ironclad Truth, of course! What can I say? The days are getting warmer, and riot season is about to dawn in the urban areas. Nothing like a polite but firm affirmation of your own omnipotence to get your REEEEEEE’s cooing and the subsequent fires raging, all right.

It does seem, though, that this seasonal theme is particularly Luciferian this year. To wit:

Even before the snow was completely off the ground, those modern mendicants of the Mollochian methodology of John Dee – commonly known as ‘scientists’ – were heralding a wonder. Operating on the basis of the world being all the more richer the more Spielbergian it happens to be, they popped in their old bootleg cassettes of the Jurassic Park soundtrack album at a presser and announced to an awed mob that they had brought the much-missed (?) dire wolf back from extinction!!! Nothing to it, really. Just extract a DNA sample from a fossilized femur, implant the genetic goulash into an existing wolf egg, wait 3 hours and stir occasionally, run the mixture through a 3-D printer, and Bob’s your uncle! The result: a litter of adorable resurrected pups, ready to grace the cover of NatGeo or a re-issue of Edgar Winter’s Frankenstein album, as the case might be.

Wasn’t that enlightening??? Could alchemical reconstructions of woolly mammoths and stegosauri be far behind???

Well….no.

As it transpired, all that actually happened was that a minuscule percentage of dire wolf DNA was successfully grafted onto the existing genome of the common old grey wolf. The “triumphal” result couldn’t even be described as a hybrid. All we got was a litter of certified 100% grade-A grey wolf cubs, very slightly modified into albinos with especially annoying yips. One finds more anomalies in the natural breeding patterns of any grey wolf pack in the Arctic.

But no matter. The scientific community and their sub-Bill Nye popular spokespersons are still parroting their remarkable feat and wondering when the Nobel Committee will come calling. In the meanwhile, perhaps they could busy themselves duct taping bone fragments together and announcing their re-discovery of Piltdown Man.

Need I point out, as well, that these results could easily be construed to suggest that white is nothing that can’t be created in a test tube, and that any further characteristics embedded exclusively within the European races can be discounted as mere social constructs that don’t catch the eye in a still photograph like beige, yellow, brown, or black do? No wonder the Cryptocracy is still working fervently to close this particular sale.

And speaking of science: why rocket off to the planet Wakanda when you can put the planet Wakanda INTO a rocket???? Isn’t that multitasking or something? And are not women especially gifted in that regard?

Y’see, it was no longer sufficient to allow Netflix to finance inordinate amounts of thuddingly dull celluloid documenting the adventures of black women in the 50s who managed to not flunk out of physics and algebra to band together and invent NASA, thus stealing the thunder from that dastardly deviant Werner Von Braun. No, it was time for Jeff Bezos to establish his very own Appalling space program and send his wife and a gaggle of her insipid ethnic friends into orbit to prove that dey kin show Massuhs Armstrong and Aldrin a thing or two! Too bad Stanley Kubrick is no longer with us to script their landing on the dark side of the moon, but we can’t have everything.

And thus was born the Blue Origin mission. Hmmm….blue as in Democrat? Must be some more of that vaunted Cryptocratic riddling.

Anyway, Katy Perry and four B-listers launched into “space” – or at least a reasonable facsimile thereof, one that allowed them to bounce around like nitwits and take selfies of themselves, and never mind casting awed glances out the window for even a fracture of a second, let alone deign to pretend to be working any kind of controls or establishing any kind of connection with home base. Girl bosses work hard, and party harder, I guess. Then actually competent technicians on the ground brought them home, Jeff pretended to have trouble blowing the ejection bolts on the capsule door, and the chicks ran out giggling and kissing the ground. The end. Best episode of Josie and the Pussycats ever.

But never mind the lack of dignity and decorum. This was still a monumentally historic feat. The first-ever all female space launch!

Except…it isn’t.

That honor belongs to Russian cosmonaut Valentina Tereshkova in June 1963. An honor all the more notable as it was a solo effort. It was also a three-day jaunt, not a forty-five minute lark. Not much time to hold a slumber party out among the stars when you’re in that predicament. Granted, it’s no less of an odious display of feminist agitprop. But if one wants to properly virtue-signal, at least get some basic history right beforehand.

Well, science isn’t really a thing among girlbosses anyway. Their jam is more along the pathway of true crime. And boy, did the spring present a doozy of a case to unfold before their tastelessly mascaraed and false-lashed eyes!

George Floyd’s worthy successor Karmelo Anthony – whose name sounds like the title of an Italian ballad sung by Perry Como on Texaco Star Theater in 1954 and which name, furthermore, seems to be in deliberate reference to past NBA player Carmelo Anthony – did what any civilized Christian being would do when asked to leave a tent at a Texas track meet and went all Ginsu on the slavedriving Whitey teenager who dared to issue him commands. The result: one dead white youngster by the name of Austin Metcalf and one more surly Ebonic thrust into the national spotlight by communist influencers kvetching about the raw deal he got.

And Dindu’s defence has been positively breathtaking – continue acting indignant for the cameras and let his family and their appointed Soros action committees wield all the obfuscation cudgels on his behalf. Boy, that ought to inspire the faithful. Even Martin Luther King took pains to holler out a few hypocritical egalitarian platitudes while he was being rightfully hauled off to the holding cells of Birmingham.

And wield those cudgels with vigor his spin doctors are indeed doing – to the point that they refuse to concede that Metcalf could possibly have been the progeny of human parents, as indicated when Metcalf’s father was roughly escorted out of the audience of an indulgent Fred Goldman-style pity party arranged by the Anthony family to capitalize on their son’s conviction to the hilt. The neo-Pharisees who oversee the Wakandan cult cannot even tolerate the quiet, unassuming presence of a Peter in their midst as they conduct their own little star chamber. Sufficient for their son’s martyrdom is their own debased will thereof.

What else has been going down? Oh, yeah – the Jesuitical bishop of Rome went off to his eternal disreward. The ten years between 2015 and 2025 had many, many contenders for Top Wokie, but Francis the Talking Mule might have even bested Justin Trudeau in that contest. Who could possibly top his stellar posturing?

Well, we have a comer.

After initial reports that the Conclave was smitten with liberation theology-affirming Cardinal Luis Antonio Tagle of the Philippines – to the point that some news outlets were considering him the papal frontrunner right before the white smoke was vomited forth – the world gaped in wonder and varied “conservative” Catholic prelates pretended to be delighted when the decidedly omega-looking Cardinal Robert Prevost of Chicago (Obama’s kinda town!) appeared on the balcony pretending to be Pope Leo XIV.

The initial gut reaction from MAGA was a caterwauling of beer-soaked war whoops, as finally after like a gajillion years a MURIKAN was finally in charge of the forces of Antichrist! But after the initial kneejerk, a few of the more tech-savvy among them started doing some digging on X and discovered old tweets of his advocating for open borders and pleading for signatures on the ‘Catholic Climate Petition’ and the like, and that kind of killed the buzz. Not enough to completely stop the myriad of memes online showing Leo the Lyin’ eating deep dish pizza and reminiscing about duh Bearzzzzzssss, but hey, never let a good fad go to waste.

As it has been the custom for decades now for new popes to choose their names based on traits they wish to continue in their namesake predecessors, it would do Tradcats well to remember what Leo XIII is best remembered for – his 1891 encyclical Rerum novarum, a commentary on the West’s inevitable industrial permanence and the place of both worker and employer therein. While not explicitly revolutionary, generations of left-wing Catholic scholars have interpreted this work as opening the door to the acceptance of tenets of Catholic socialism, and mainstream religious historians for over the century have proclaimed it an overall progressive work, its middling objections regarding usury to the contrary. Given Prevost’s background, and given that Western industrialization is as dead as an Epstein witness, it stands to reason that he’ll be eager to bring forth an encyclical written on decidedly more Trotskyite, Frankfurt School grounds. Perhaps Rerum fabulousum, affirming the right of genderfluids to attain the priesthood provided that they remain celibate – which, in these times, means not having your phone off and not recording you while you’re doing what you do behind locked cloisters? Only time will tell.

It will make for good popcorn fare, observing him telling nascent nativist countries like Ireland and Italy that they must accept untold more numbers of Moors within their borders if they want the head honcho to consider them Christian, I have to admit.

(For an excellent take on the new pope, including an alternate reading of the significance of his connection to Leo XIII, see Michael Hoffman’s piece on his Substack here.)

In far less interesting news, there was a selection…uh, ‘election’ in Canada recently. Spoiler alert: it was bound to fail, and fail it did.

Conservative leader Pierre Poi’lie’vre, National Flameout‘s Man of the Year, blew one of the widest leads seen in recent electoral polling and handed the Liberals a fourth consecutive mandate under Mark Carney, onetime globalist golden child now relegated to the geopolitical wilderness after his stint as governor of the Bank of England didn’t generate a sufficient storehouse of shekels to send over to Ukraine or ‘Net Zero’ devotees in Somalia or wherever.

I’ll give him credit, though, for being very aptly named. In addition to indeed being a very devious and unsavory ‘carny’ who would rig any midway game you would care to partake in, his first name definitely suggests the Mark of Cain, and Carney’s vagabondage upon the earth – culminating in triad citizenships in Canada, the United Kingdom, and Ireland – is worthy of his spiritual forefather. No doubt he’ll be a great builder of Canadian cities as well, where everyone subsists on 100% digital pogey and no one will own anything, yet be happy.

Of course, what put him over the finish line was Trump’s persistent yammering about ‘the 51^st state’ and “threats” of amalgamation, even though Canadian products are inherently dumb and unneeded, to hear him tell it. There is no better way to guarantee leftist nationalist sentiment at the polls up here than for an American president to pull a stunt like that, and Trump sealed the deal by making his preference for a Carney government as explicit as possible, saying he would prefer doing business with Marky Mark and his Funky Bunch.

Canadians being the most credulous people on earth, though, this didn’t stop them in their reinvigorated fervor for the much maligned Justin Trudeau’s party. They bought Carney’s ‘Captain Canada’ spiel hook, line, and sinker, and immediately began participating in the inane ‘Elbows Up’ economic nationalist campaign he instituted as a pathetic secular replacement for the muscular Christianity of old.

And once he was installed, how did he repay their efforts? Why, by trotting down to DC like a good little lapdog and nodding and smiling at everything Trump had to say about how things are gonna be, of course! Then he came home to plaudits from Canada’s state-run media talking about how statesmanlike he had been, and the movement to create a synchronized technocratic cyber-prison between both countries could get under way in earnest, as per Elon Musk’s and Peter Thiel’s wishes.

So thank you, Liberal voters, for your unbelievable perspicacity and political acumen! We couldn’t have made it without you. Especially we in the western provinces, where separatist sentiment is growing exponentially and justly.

And if all of these springtime developments weren’t worthy enough of hashtags, to top everything off the ongoing meme of ‘globalists blocking out the sun’ is ramping up again. Because naturally warming temperatures are the surest sign of the environmental eschaton there is, doncha know. It seems to be feeding off of a brief but intense bit of rumored fear porn that was making the rounds about how a mass blackout of the energy grid in Spain and Portugal was caused by a solar flare. Never you mind that even major media outlets are now conceding that the likely culprit was an overburdened and unsustainable renewable energy grid heedlessly embraced by Iberia back in the day – the germ of conjecture has now been planted, and you can bet that the likes of Bill Gates and the UK’s Keir Starmer will be running with it, just as soon as stratospheric filter financing from the Rothschilds comes through.

That’s just a short summary of the crazy we have witnessed in 2025 thus far. More to follow.

What ties all of these seemingly variegated strings together?

Nothing less than the oldest story of time: vestiges of fallen mankind willing themselves to be what they are fundamentally not – namely, objects of worship. Pretenders to Godhood. The serpent has never stopped whispering in the ear of the descendants of Eve about the glories of usurping Glory, but his task is rendered far, far easier in these times when he is able to possess mechanical internet servers. Lucifier is nothing if not hyper-efficient.

In such an environment, one can project one’s preferred candidate for inclusion in the governing structure of Elysium and have the nomination approved by default by the polyglot algorithm which oversees all. Resurrected prehistoric werewolves? Sounds good. An all-lesbian space shuttle crew? Right this way, ladies. A “good boy who dindu nothin”? There’s always room to be made for one or two more of those. A Midwestern transplant to South America draped in the finery of Antichrist? Do you even have to ask?

And all of these bear the imprint of their spiritual mentor Nimrod, one of history’s premier posturers. A mighty hunter upon the earth he might have been. A god-tier architect who fancied he could storm the gates of heaven in a protracted siege he was not, though his underlings sure thought otherwise.

They are especially smitten by Nimrod on account of his Cushite, and thus Hamite, ancestry. The trope of the powerful black lording it over all other races so that his own particular worldview might prevail did not originate in these postmodern times. Nor even in the virulently Marxist antebellum times, when lust for strange flesh was at just as much of a fever pitch.

What of the global ‘one speech’ that made such a misguided marvel possible in the first place? That would be the universal acceptance of atomization, on both the left and right wings of the Web of Babel, in furtherance of a perceived one-world nexus of power that a failing global elite still embraces as the furthest means to their domineering ends. It certainly doesn’t hurt that the language common to all social media users is an increasingly moronic pidgin style of English, in which phrases like LOL and WUT sum up the ironic achievements of post-Christian thought far more eloquently than I could ever hope to do.

And, till God sees fit to scramble their speech from one another – perhaps one of the aforementioned solar flares would be a most apt manifestation of divine judgment in this regard – we can only expect this trend to continue. Lots of hooters and hollerers on Mars Hill, but only one unknown God.

Now if you’ll excuse me, there’s a hot take on some Qatari airplane taken possession of by Trump that warrants my undivided attention….

Read the original article by Enos at his blog here.

Recently, it has become all the rage for the lite WOKE left to accuse the dissident right of being “WOKE RIGHT.” The lite WOKE left is doing this in order to try and gate-keep for the hard WOKE left. It is hoped by those slinging around the accusation of “WOKE RIGHT” that they will be able to discredit the dissident and Christian Right with many who are not epistemologically self conscious in our current truth contest.

Now, I have never understood the guts of this accusation and I have legitimately tried to understand that the WOKE Right and the WOKE Left are really the same only as mirror opposites. The argument that the WOKE Right is the same as the WOKE Left is that both use the same methodology to arrive at their opposite positions.

I hope to give the lie to that idiocy in this post.

The only way to examine a position is to look at the Worldview and theology undergirding it. That is how I intend to answer the question; “Is there such a thing as the WOKE Right which mirrors the WOKE Left?”

When it comes to Worldviews we have to consider the issue of Ontology. Ontology (or metaphysics) examines the principles and causes of being. It examine issues of origins and the nature of reality. The Ontology of the WOKE Left, not believing in an extra-mundane personal God, is time + chance + circumstance. Because of this denial of an extra-mundane personal God, man becomes the agent who determines all of reality. The WOKE Left thus have created, whole-cloth, an ideological narrative that posits an Oppressed vs. Oppressor dynamic wherein those defined as “Oppressed” by the WOKE Left are now allowed to be the “Oppressors” in the WOKE Left worldview. The problem here is that those labeled as “Oppressed” and “Oppressors”are completely arbitrary. This arbitrariness is allowed because, in their Ontology there is no extra-mundane personal and authoritative God who can set the standard for “Oppressed” and “Oppressor.” Not believing in the God of the Bible they are their own God and being their own God they create, by manipulating the evidence, who occupies the “Oppressed” and “Oppressor” categories and, lo and behold, the chief “Oppressor” in this God hating worldview is the Christian White man who has been, by God’s grace alone, the chief carrier of civilizational Christianity.

Now along comes the WOKE lite left who has a vested interested in coming to the aid and assistance of the hard WOKE left and the WOKE lite left accuses the Dissident Right of being WOKE right. However, this accusation fails, particularly as pointed at the Christian dissident right, because   the Christian dissident rights worldview includes an extra-mundane personal and authoritative God. The dissident right holds that God created all things in six days and all very good. Because of this affirmation of the extra-mundane personal and authoritative God, the dissident right bows to God’s determination of reality. This means that the dissident right does not move in terms of the WOKE left’s “Oppressor vs. Oppressed” categories but rather moves in terms of the Christian antithesis which teaches that Christians are blessed and the wicked are cursed. When the dissident right looks at world history they see not “Oppressed vs. Oppressor” but they see blessed vs. cursed. When the cursed are successful over the righteous the Christian sees that as the chastening hand of God against His people for their rebellion against God.

All this means that the Christian sees history as much more complex than merely a “Oppressed vs. Oppressor” dynamic. This also means that the idea that a WOKE right exists is just pure bollix. The ontology embraced in the Christian worldview does not allow for a WOKE ontology. Something else that should be noted here is that the dissident Christian right also believes that the righteous should rule over the wicked. That rule over the wicked is to be consistent with God’s revealed Word but make no mistake — it is God’s good toward the wicked that the righteous rule over them.

This brings us in turn to the issue of epistemology in the competing worldviews of the dissident Christian right and the WOKE left. Epistemolgoy answers the question; “How do we know what we know.” The epistemology that the WOKE left has embraced is that of Critical theory as applied across a host of disciplines. Critical theory thus provides the WOKE left epistemological foundation. Critical theory arose in the context of postmodernism. Postmodernism held that true truth (absolute truth) did not exist and that as such all that existed was what they called “social constructs.” “Social constructs” were human inventions serving as “arbitrary truth dynamics” that different people groups and sub-groups would abide by until such a time they changed their minds moving to a different “social construct truth paradigm.” Critical theory arises in this mix insisting that absolute truth does not exist while agreeing with the po-mo project about truth as social construct and the social construct truth that the Critical theory builds is, as we have seen, the whole myth of “Oppressed” vs. “Oppressor” as they alone – solely upon their own authority – designate the “Oppressed” vs. “Oppressor” categories. Now, WOKE epistemology hates the God of the Bible and hates the idea that true truth exists and so not surprisingly, as noted above, the WOKE project has labeled as the chief “Oppressor” throughout world history as the people who own the worldview handed down from God and revealed in Scripture. The anti-Christ worldview that is WOKE finds their natural #1 enemy to be the ones guilty of being the “Oppressors” throughout history. How convenient. Now, the WOKE lite left (many of whom insist they are Christian) come along and support the worldview of the hard WOKE left in the name of Christ. The WOKE lite left join hands with the hard WOKE left to put Christian Nationalists in the dock in order to accuse them of being just like the hard WOKE left. This is a classic example of the Saul Alinsky tactic of accusing your opponent of that which you are guilty.

So, the WOKE Left uses Critical Race theory as their epistemology. This epistemic part of the post-modern project and worldview that the hard WOKE left embraces, rejects the idea of true truth. Contrasted with this is the so-called WOKE Right which rejects CRT as their epistemology choosing instead God’s Word as their epistemic authority. As such, we have to ask, “How can the WOKE Right be the same as the WOKE Left when their epistemology is diametrically opposed to one another?”

By continuing to examine the worldviews of both WOKE left and dissident right we continue to discover complete opposition at every point. Another example would be the anthropology of WOKE left vs. dissident Christian right. The WOKE left hold an anthropology that man is merely matter in motion. Not owning a personal God all that is left for the WOKE left is to affirm that man only has the meaning that man himself gives to himself. With this anthropology the WOKE left has chosen to take as the ideal man the pervert, the feminist, and the Christless minority to be their “Oppressed” heroes. This arbitrary choice is completely in concord with Rousseau’s noble savage theory. For Rousseau and the Romanticist worldview there existed an idealized concept of uncivilized man who symbolized the innate goodness of man as not exposed to the corrupting influences of civilization. This anthropology continues for the WOKE left. The only thing that has been changed out is that whereas for the worldview of Romanticism it was the frontier Indian in the new World who served as the noble savage who was to be esteemed as the ideal man, now it is the sexual pervert, feminist, and Christ-hating minority who serves as the noble savage. Further, the anthropology of the current WOKE left teaches that the man who is the least of all mankind is the Biblical Christian who insists that justice needs to be brought against the modern noble savage.

To the contrary of all this the dissident Christian right embraces an anthropology that teaches that man outside of Jesus Christ is a sinner who can only sin all the time since he has a sin nature out of which arises nothing but sin. The anthropology of the dissident Christian right rejects the idea that man is basically good — and this is never more true than when considering the WOKE left’s noble savages. Because of this the WOKE left hates with all their might the dissident right.

The “Christian” Woke lite left once again does the dirty work of the hard WOKE left by indicting other Christians with sharing the same worldview as the hard WOKE left. We begin to see then a pattern. The lite WOKE left, though claiming Christ, are operating out of a Christless world and life view. They are, by their accusations against their dissident Right brothers of being WOKE right demonstrating that they belong to their father the Devil.

We move next to the worldview issue of teleology. Teleology deals with man’s conviction concerning the purposeful development toward an end, as in history. Teleology answers the question “where are we headed.” For the dissident Christian the answer is “the Kingdom of God and His Christ.” For the Hard WOKE left the answer is “the Kingdom of man.” Note the diametrical opposition between these two answers. The Hard WOKE left believes he is building a better if indeed not perfect Utopia and the one group of people who stand most decidedly against his Utopian project are the dissident Christian right who absolutely hate the idea of building Utopias which, because man is the god in the Utopian visions, always end up being the ugliest of Dystopias. The dissident Right does not look for a man centered Utopia but instead sees history directed towards the postmillennial end of God’s Kingdom being built up on planet earth due to God’s determination, by the work of His Holy Spirit, to have the Kingdoms of this earth become the kingdoms of our Lord and His Christ.

So, given this opposition how can the WOKE lite left – manned by “Christians” who hate Christian Nationalism –  ever accuse, with a straight face, that the dissident Christian right is in point of fact serving as a “WOKE” right? The idea is just ludicrous and could only be vomited up by those who have no capacity to think in Biblical categories.

Our last Christian worldview category that we will consider is the worldview issue of axiology. Axiology is the study of values and value judgments. Axiology answers the question; “What is our ultimate value.” For the dissident right the answer to that question is always; “Our ultimate value is the glory of God and His Christ being seen, as determined by God’s revelation found in Scripture.” For the WOKE left the answer to that question is alaway; “Our ultimate value is the advancement of the glory of man, as determined by our completely subjective analysis.” Remember in the WOKE left world and life view there is no God who exists to whom glory can be given. As such, the question of axiology is always reduced to man being his own ultimate value. The hard WOKE worldview is always about the glory of man as determined by some Christless God hating elite. This Christless God hating elite most usually exists as occupying seats of power located in the Mega-State or the Mega-Corporate or the Mega-Banking world. This Christless, God hating elite finds their penultimate value in destroying any Biblical Christian belonging to the dissident Right who would oppose their hard WOKE or even lite WOKE left world and life view and agenda.

So, we see the whole accusation of being “WOKE Right” is utterly without foundation and so completely ridiculous. The Hard WOKE left and the lite WOKE left are operating out of a completely different Weltanschauung as compared to the Dissident Christian Right. To suggest that the Hard WOKE right is the same as the Hard WOKE is just a ploy to poison the well of what the dissident Christian right advocates as it advocates the Crown Rights of the Rightful Rule – the Lord Jesus Christ – over every area of life. The accusation of “Hard WOKE Right” is a brilliant subterfuge birthed from the womb of Satan purposed to dilute the impact of the advance of Biblical Christianity as championed by the dissident Christian Right.

You can also read Ehud’s original post at his blog, here.

The horror of Austin Metcalf’s murder at the hands of Karmelo Anthony follows a long sad pattern in this country – a pattern of White people slaughtered by demoniac negroes whose actions are excused and/or instantly forgiven by the victims’ families. And all absent any hint of contrition on the part of the killers.

Essential to this pattern is the fact that moderns will feel more outrage at the words “demoniac negroes” than at Blacks’ ongoing predation on the children of our people. 

Unlike in cases of Black-on-Brown/Yellow/etc., Black-on-White murders are routinely followed by these ritual press junkets in which parents of the victim are trotted out before cameras to make solemn pronouncements of forgiveness and impassioned pleas for unconditional love on the impenitent beasts who snuff out the lives of their kids. This ritual is presented as a patent gesture of Christian grace. 

But is this promiscuous sort of grace the true Christian position? 

A few preliminary points before we turn to the Scripture …

The fact that this standard is never expected of anyone but Whites should tell you something in itself. Not only do non-Whites never take up this forgive-and-forget posture, neither does anyone expect them to do so. Even if they claim Christian faith. 

But since Whites don’t go around murdering innocent Black kids, the closest parallel we might examine is when a Black thug is killed by one of his intended victims, or a Good Samaritan who came to the rescue of others (Daniel Penny, et al.). But this lopsided comparison actually underscores the point because the normative response of Black family at even the wholly warranted death of one of their own is calls for vengeance on not only the Whites involved, but White people in general. 

As a result cities burn over and again, and more innocent Whites are hunted down in the streets and in our homes. And neither the Press nor any high-profile pulpit dares rebuke Blacks for it. They rather rebuke anyone who calls them to repentance.

Another clue is that this ostensible White-only obligation of grace is insisted upon by every Atheist, Communist, Muslim, Jew, Buddhist, Hindu, and Satanist – the whole kingdom of the cults. Clearly then, there is nothing supernatural about this brand of grace because it seems to be the carnal conviction held in common by every antichrist religion – that White people are uniquely obliged to identify with and bless their children’s killers. Especially when the killer is a negro. 

And as seen in Austin’s case, this brand of promiscuous grace bestowed from White-to-Black never fosters any sort of peace. In fact, that very forgiveness offends and provokes Blacks. They answer in unison that there’s nothing to be forgiven because he “din du nuffin wrong.” 

But you won’t hear the Pastorate taking the Black community to task for their affirmation of genocide. No, the churchmen will rather inveigh against any White Christians who dare notice such things. 

Despite the irenic overtures and assurances from Austin’s father that it wasn’t about race, no one can come to that conclusion after perusing Black Twitter where they are presently lauding Karmelo as a hero. Not a few, either. Virtually all Blacks insist that it is all about race. 

Despite all Mr. Metcalf’s conciliatory colorblind talk, Blacks are resolved that Austin was a White Supremacist from a White Supremacist family, and he deserved what he got. Worse though is the fact that our churchmen are largely saying “amen”.

So, what sayeth the Scripture? 

“Your eye shall not pity. Life shall go for life…” (Deuteronomy 19:21)

Apart from clear mitigating circumstances (and there are none in this case) the lex talionis shall not be denied. In a conclusive case of murder like this, there is no right to plead for leniency. Whether from the family of the killer, or that of the victim, sympathy for the devil is patently forbidden.

God further declares to those who withhold His rulings from capital criminals “… his blood I will require by your hand.” (Ezek. 3:18). Even those with no stomach for it are commanded to aid the case against the murderer in whatever way they can, and even carry out the sentence, if necessary. Those who dissemble or demure in such a case only position themselves as co-conspirators in the crime, and should be held liable.

Of course, liberals selectively marshal passages like Jesus’s petition from the Cross, “Forgive them Father, for they know not what they do.” (Lk. 23:34, etc.) As if the Scripture could contradict itself. 

But this was clearly a prayer for the Gentiles who did not understand what was going on, but were compelled by the threats of Jewish riots, not for the Jews who with full cognizance of its meaning, demanded His crucifixion. This is evident both in the immediate context and the fulfillment of His prayer. The Gentile nations present converted and went on to build Christendom while the Judaeans’ hearts were hardened and underwent utmost judgement for it. 

The same distinction is drawn between Peter and Judas. Both betrayed Him, but Jesus prayed only for Peter (Lk. 22:31-32). Peter was granted repentance, but Judas (who represents the Jews both in name and principle) was not. 

They do something similar with the Lord’s Prayer where it says 

“Forgive us our tresspasses as we forgive those who trespass against us” and the admonishment to “turn the other cheek”, but as covered, these principles cannot be construed as a pretext to pit scripture against itself, subvert justice, or lay down before impenitent cutthroats who cheer the murder of your children and are hellbent on the extermination of your people. The entirety of salvation history with all its wars and heroes of the Old Testament as well as Jesus’s vengeance on His enemies in the New Testament, stand foursquare against it.

But let’s look at the liberals’ favorite “love your enemies” proof text in context: 

“Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy. But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you; That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust. For if ye love them which love you, what reward have ye? do not even the publicans the same? And if ye salute your brethren only, what do ye more than others? do not even the publicans so?”

(Matt. 5:43-47) 

Jesus is not advocating antinomianism, moral relativism, or any egalitarian levelling here. Just the opposite, He’s establishing the only basis for objective morality between men and grounds of parlay between nations. Loving your enemy is to tell him the truth, and enforce justice, as much for him as against him. This is how you ‘do good to them who hate you’. And ‘praying for your enemies’ includes the authoritative examples found in David’s imprecatory prayers – prayers that God might save their souls as He dooms their flesh, or cast them into Hell, body and soul. 

But the liberals are doing even worse than the Publicans which Jesus warned against, because they aren’t saluting their brethren at all. They deny that the White Christian boy’s life is worth defending while doting on his impenitent Black killer. They are saluting only the alien enemy stalking the lives of their own children. Even the Publicans whom Jesus refers to as a symbol of corruption knew better than that. When they biased truth and justice at least it was in favor of their own people, but the modern clerisy subvert justice in favor of alien-villains. This is what the Jews did when they chose Barabas – the worst criminal tried by Pilate – over Jesus. 

How do they justify this antinomian moral inversionary interpretation? They take Christ’s words here as contradicting and correcting David as well as the Apostles. Their hermeneutic is nothing but a denial of the univocal inspiration, authority, and coherence of scripture. Which is to say, a view which ultimately denies the Bible as God’s Word. Theirs is not the God of order and univocal truth, but a god of chaos.

But their antinomian assertions that the lex talionis is somehow nullified in the New Testament is undone directly when we see in the concluding chapters of the bible that the martyrs still cry out “… How long, O Lord, holy and true, do You not judge and avenge our blood on those dwelling upon the earth?” (Rev.6:10) This is not a plea for forgiveness or leniency on their murderers, but a cry for holy vengeance. Far from sin, their cry for vengeance is affirmed by God as righteous.

Others have said you may forgive the penitent, but not the impenitent. Because God Himself doesn’t forgive them. And this is true. Even those who sought mercy laying hold of the horns of the altar, were nonetheless executed for their crimes (1 Kings 1:50-51 & 2:28-30). Elijah put to death the priests of Baal without an altar call. And Samuel “hewed Agag in pieces before the Lord” (1 Sam. 15:33) without any expression of forgiveness. 

Think of it – if you automatically forgive the murderer of one of your children, you can offer no real defense against their continuing attacks as they turn to murder another, and another. This profligate sort of grace is what was endorsed by John Piper when he infamously preached that it would be sin to physically defend his wife from a man raping her next to him in bed. 

Do you think she feels especially loved? What then of the Metcalf children?

This liberal sort of grace and unconditional love toward reprobates is not Christian. It is the same relativistic pacifism endorsed by self-help psychoanalysis, eastern mysticism, and all the carnal schools of humanism, in general. 

It is hatred of the innocent, the martyrs, our own children, and of Jesus, Himself. Because it favors Judas, Barabas, and the Pharisees over Him.

But God calls on all His people, “stand ye not by the blood of thy neighbor.” And He commissions His Priesthood of All Believers: “Let the high praises of God be in their mouth, and a two-edged sword in their hand; To execute vengeance upon the heathen, and punishments upon the people; To bind their kings with chains, and their nobles with fetters of iron; To execute upon them the judgment written: this honour have all his saints. Praise ye the LORD.” (Psa. 149:6-9)

Back before the liberal corruption of words, when the churches remembered the real meanings of law and grace, justice and mercy, they held picnics beneath the swaying feet of hanged men. And they rejoiced at God’s merciful deliverance from evil.

I’m pleased that the topic of the Biblical concept of nationhood is gaining more traction. I have gone on record saying that Kinists need to press the question: What is a nation? The reason being that the answer to this question is thoroughly and unambiguously Kinist. The Biblical authors absolutely and uniformly consider nations to be hereditary subdivisions of mankind. Opponents of Kinism or ethno-nationalism are backed into a corner of having to oppose the concept of nationhood that is taught in the Bible. The Biblical definition of nationhood is being rediscovered by a younger generation of Christians who are finding out that the concept of nationhood has been redefined in recent decades to mean something other than what it has meant throughout history. Once one understands what the Bible means about nationhood, the rest of Kinism naturally follows. Those who oppose ethno-nationalism are given the tough task of trying to show that the Biblical concept of nationhood is, in fact, not tied to ethnicity or common ancestry. Enter Cody Lawrence.

Cody Lawrence has a YouTube channel called, Spare No Arrows. Recently it seems that Lawrence’s brain has been broken by Joel Webbon and Christian Nationalism. Lawrence is particularly irked by those defending the traditional concept of nationhood as tied to, if not absolutely synonymous with, ethnicity and common ancestry. Recently Lawrence made a video in which he attempts to debunk ethno-nationalism. There are two broad problems with the claims that Lawrence makes in his video. The first is that he fails to make a Biblical case, and the second is that he doesn’t engage in actual history to substantiate his claims. Let’s begin with his argument from the Bible.

The first thing that jumped out at me after watching this video for the first time as it did for The Other Paul, was that Cody Lawrence failed to actually define what a nation is in a video that is supposed to be about this very definition! Cody Lawrence titles his video, “What is a Nation?” and then fails to provide an answer. His argument is more geared towards arguing for what he believes a nation is not, and to Lawrence that belief is that a nation is most certainly not innately tied to ethnicity or common ancestry. Lawrence starts off his analysis of the Bible at the 6:40 mark. He states that one of the verses that is commonly used against giving immigrants immediate citizenship is Deuteronomy 23:8 which states that those eligible to enter the congregation of the Lord can do so in the third generation.

Cody Lawrence accurately states that the congregation of the Lord would be akin to Israel’s national church, and questions how this would be applicable to the question of national citizenship. Obviously, church membership and national citizenship are different concepts. Of primary concern, he doesn’t cite anyone who starts their argument at this verse. I think that Deut. 23 is relevant to the discussion of national identity, but I wouldn’t necessarily start there. If Cody Lawrence wants more robust argumentation for ethno-nationalism, I would suggest consulting the archives at Faith & Heritage, other articles on Tribal Theocrat, as well as Iron Ink and the Pactum Institute. I believe that Deut. 23 is relevant because at the very least it identifies Israel as Edom’s brother (in verse 7, cf. Num. 20:14), and this can only make sense if Israel is understood as a hereditary extension of family.

Israel and Edom are brothers because of their descent from Isaac and Rebekah through Jacob and Esau. This is the constant in Israel’s identity as a nation. The Israelites experienced periods in which they were faithful to God and periods in which they strayed into idol worship. The Israelites spoke Hebrew, but later spoke Aramaic and Greek while Hebrew was more confined to liturgical usage. Israel’s culture was also shaped by its history of freedom and prosperity under God and captivity as punishment for their sin. The one thing that continuously defined Israel as a nation was its common descent from the patriarchs.

Many other Biblical texts confirm this observation. The Table of Nations states that the nations were separated out “after their families, in their nations” (Gen. 10) as it identifies nations based upon their particular descent from Noah. This is also confirmed at the beginning of 1 Chronicles by establishing Israel’s identity “by genealogies.” The Law recognizes the distinction between Israelites (“of your own nation”) and friendly, covenant-keeping strangers that dwell among them (Lev. 18:26). Everyone was to receive the same standard of justice, but there are certain civil privileges reserved in Israel for the Israelites. The civil government is reserved for blood Israelites (Deut. 1, 17:15). This is why it is significant that David is of the “bone and flesh” of the Israelites he is to rule (2 Sam. 5:1/1 Chr. 11:1). When the prophet Jeremiah asks rhetorically (in Jer. 13:23), “Can the Ethiopian change his skin,” he presupposes that nations have a definite outward appearance which is brought about by common descent from a common set of patriarchs.

This concept is carried over into the New Testament. We can acknowledge that all nations descend from Adam and share a common origin, while still maintaining their legitimacy as distinct nations. Francis Nigel Lee states it this way: “Pentecost sanctified the legitimacy of separate nationality rather than saying this is something we should outgrow. In fact, even in the new earth to come, after the Second Coming of Christ, we are told that the nations of them which are saved shall walk in the light of the heavenly Jerusalem, and the kings of the earth shall bring the glory and the honor – the cultural treasures – of the nations into it… But nowhere in Scripture are any indications to be found that such peoples should ever be amalgamated into one huge nation.” (Dr. Francis Nigel Lee. Race, People, and Nationality. 2/2/2005). Dr. Lee is referencing the Apostle John’s vision of the New Heaven and New Earth in which multiple nations worship and glorify God (Rev. 21:24-26).

Cody Lawrence’s argument hinges upon his interpretation of 1 Pet. 2:9 which he gives beginning at the 11 minute mark. He points out that the Church is identified as a nation, and then points out that Christians are called a family, presumably alluding to Gal. 6:10. He states that all Christians are part of a nation and a family and relate as brothers and sisters in spite of everyone not looking alike. He states that the church is the “platonic ideal” of a nation and asks if America should try to look like the world or look like the nation that God established. He continues by arguing that we should want America to be multi-racial because that’s how “God’s nation” operates, “if we actually want America to be modeled after Christ, if we live in a Christian nation.”

Cody Lawrence’s error is that he is committing a massive category fallacy. The church is a nation in a manner of speaking, as it is a family, a bride, a body, a building, etc. None of these analogies actually replace or override the concept or thing to which they are referring. If we take Lawrence’s argument and apply it to the church being the bride of Christ as in Ephesians 5, we would have to conclude that because the church includes men and women from all nations of the world, that we should seek to emulate this in our individual marriages…presumably by marrying men and women from all the nations of the world and practicing something akin to Oneida-style “communal marriage.” Lawrence is committing a species of the illegitimate totality transfer fallacy, in which he is assuming that the word “nation” in 1 Pet. 2:9 has the same meaning as when the word is used elsewhere. In this particular case, Cody Lawrence suggests that 1 Pet. 2:9 represents a sort of “platonic ideal” of nationhood that other nations should strive to accomplish. This misses the point of the analogy.

The church is a spiritual nation because the Bible presupposes that nations are societies linked by common ancestry and birth. The very meaning of the English word nation is derived from natal, meaning birth. Thus the church is a “holy nation” because Christians are united by a common rebirth by the Holy Spirit. The same logic works for other analogies used by the New Testament authors as well. The church is a body in that it contains many members having different functions, but all under the head and coordinated to work together. The church is the bride of Christ in that the church submits to Christ as her lord and protector, while husbands ought to emulate Christ in their relationship to their wives in sacrificially loving them as Christ does the church. Common rebirth by the Holy Spirit makes all Christians brothers and sisters in this sense, while not in any way mitigating the particular relationships that we have with our own families and extended families.

The irony is that Cody Lawrence seemingly misses the actual point of contact in the church being a spiritual nation in 1 Pet. 2:9 in that Peter presupposes that nations are grounded in shared ancestry in order to make the analogy work. The spiritual nation of the church is comprised of Christians from all the physical nations of the world. The Bible affirms the goodness of nations as nations in that Jesus makes them the subjects of evangelization, baptism, and discipleship (Matt. 28:19-20). Ps. 86:9 affirms that the plurality of nations is a part of God’s good design when it proclaims that all nations which God has made will worship Him. Moses affirms that it is God who divided the nations and gave them their inheritance (Deut. 32:8-9).

The ingathering of all the nations to the true worship of God permeates the entire Old Testament to a degree that many more instances could be cited, but the above examples suffice. All of this is meaningless if we don’t maintain the distinction between the spiritual nationhood of the church from legitimate physical national identity which the Bible repeatedly affirms as a good aspect of God’s intentional creation. Finally, Cody Lawrence also predictably invokes the oft-abused Gal. 3:28 by noting that in God’s kingdom both Jew and Greek, male and female have “equal value.” That isn’t being disputed by anyone. Even Corey Mahler recognizes the existence of black Christians who he acknowledges as brothers in Christ. Gal. 3:28 is simply not about national identity or immigration and naturalization policy.

The second major issue with Cody Lawrence’s presentation on national identity is his abuse of history. He accuses ethno-nationalists of being “woke right” and “Marxist” and seeking to deceptively “change the dictionary.” Later in the video he also claims that while the word ethnicity comes from the Greek word ethnos, and that this word is translated as “nation” in English editions of the Bible, nevertheless our concept of ethnicity has been “corrupted” since this time. His grandiose historical claims are made without any evidence offered in their defense. Ethno-nationalists have not changed the definition of nation. I’ve already established how the word nation is used consistently throughout the Bible, and that this usage tied to common ancestry is even assumed by its metaphorical application in 1 Pet. 2:9. It’s also worth pointing out that this definition wasn’t invented by ethno-nationalists as part of some covert psy-op to fool everyone.

A reliable definition of nationhood can be found in Black’s Law Dictionary: “A people, or aggregation of men, existing in the form of an organized jural society, usually inhabiting a distinct portion of the earth, speaking the same language, using the same customs, possessing historic continuity, and distinguished from other like groups by their racial origin and characteristics, and generally, but not necessarily, living under the same government and sovereignty.” (Emphasis mine)

Is the above definition dating to the early 20th century part of the “woke right” conspiracy to “change the dictionary?” Modern scholarship on the concept of ethnicity indicates that it has only recently become regularly used in the English language. The fact that the word doesn’t appear in the Oxford English Dictionary until 1953 indicates that it has become a means of discussing the traditional attributes of nationhood during the time in which the traditional concept of nationhood has been supplanted by the idea of propositional nations based upon ideas and abstractions in the post-WWII West. Professor Baumann isn’t saying anything controversial when he writes: “The true origins of ‘ethnic’ have been traced back to Greece and the term ethnos, which was used in reference to band, tribe, race, a people, or a swarm.”

Cody Lawrence’s knowledge of America’s founding is just as bad if not worse than his knowledge of the dictionary. This is what he has to say about American identity: “America is unique and beautiful among the world because we have a uniquely Christian founding. One of the ways that makes us unique is that the Founders actually sort of modeled becoming a member of our nation from the Bible…America, even the Founders, came from all over the place. People who founded America had very different cultures, but they came and became a part of one culture. That’s the important thing.” Later he suggests that ethno-nationalism is “un-America” and opposed “to the principles that America was founded upon…America is completely different than any other nation on earth because America is a Christian nation.”

This is melting pot mythology, not actual American history. America’s foundation can be traced to permanent English colonization of what was then known as the New World. These colonies were explicitly Christian in nature, and at least some of them continued this way for some time after the American Revolution. These Christian Founders restricted naturalized citizenship to “free white persons.” Cody Lawrence’s contention that America’s founders “came from all over the place” with “very different cultures” is also pure fiction. The occasional Dutch or German settler does not a polyglot polity make.

John Jay wrote in defense of the Constitutional union: “With equal pleasure I have as often taken notice that Providence has been pleased to give this one connected country to one united people — a people descended from the same ancestors, speaking the same language, professing the same religion, attached to the same principles of government, very similar in their manners and customs, and who, by their joint counsels, arms, and efforts, fighting side by side throughout a long and bloody war, have nobly established general liberty and independence.” (John Jay, Federalist #5, emphasis mine).

It’s painful to watch Cody Lawrence be so obviously wrong while fuming at those with whom he disagrees. During his video he accuses those who dare to disagree with Ronald Reagan’s assessment that anyone can become an American of “hating people who don’t look like them.” Later he accuses ethno-nationalists of “hating people other than themselves” and “lacking hospitality for foreigners.” This is gratuitous slander, and tantamount to saying that those who don’t want to abolish private property only do so because they hate everyone who isn’t a member of their family. He stated on X that “Ethno-nationalism is for men what blue haired feminism is for women. Both do a great job at making you unmarriable and ensuring the next generation won’t believe that crap. Keep up the good work.” Even if he believes that ethno-nationalists are as vile as he seems to think, how is this not returning evil for evil?

Cody Lawrence is a disciple of atheist James Lindsay when it comes to the political spectrum, which is why he is so enamored of the phrase Lindsay coined, “woke right.” As we’ve just seen, if modern ethno-nationalists are “woke right,” then so are America’s Christian Founding Fathers and virtually everyone in the Christian West prior to the middle of the 20^th century. This was recently exposed during the debate between Joel Berry and Dave Greene. He accuses ethno-nationalists of trying to change the dictionary when he is profoundly ignorant of both the teachings of Scripture about national identity and the history of the word “nation” as it has been traditionally understood. He ought to know better because he’s been corrected several times on these matters. If he cannot learn from these mistakes then I suggest Mr. Lawrence change the name of his YouTube channel to Spare No Errors.

Doug Wilson recently posted a video on his Blog & Mablog YouTube channel called Epistemological Impudence and The Post-War Consensus. He has a real knack for coming up with titles that just roll off the tongue. The thesis advanced by Wilson is that World War II set the stage for the zeitgeist of relativism. The secular elites adopted relativism because they came to believe that deeply held beliefs and dogmas were the cause of war with all of its accompanying atrocities. The solution was: mix in some relativistic “paint thinner” with our convictions to make sure that the evils that brought about the world wars could be avoided in the future. Wilson recalls a rancorous classroom discussion in the 1970s in which a young woman complained about how the deep seated convictions of Christians made them “just like the Nazis.”

Wilson states that the relativism of the post-war consensus was on full display after the conclusion of hostilities at the Nuremberg trials in which putative German war criminals were confronted with the vague and amorphous charge of “crimes against humanity.” Wilson cleverly states that the secular elites decided that “crimes against humanity” would come to mean “anything displeasing to the nation that developed the atomic weaponry first.” Wilson continues, “If Germany had won the war, a ‘crime against humanity’ would have been ‘whatever it was that the Jews were doing.’” Wilson calls out Allied hypocrisy in our selective outrage, noting that “Hitler has slain his six million; meanwhile democratically run America has slain its sixty million.” Wilson complains that the “shock value of the revelation of what the Nazis had been doing in the concentration camps” provided the Allies with the opportunity to “try the Nazis on a fundamentally Nazi principle. We tried the Nazis in our own name and on our own authority, which is exactly what they would have done had the positions been reversed.”

This is really where Wilson’s analysis runs off the rails in my opinion. That Hitler killed “a lot of Jews” is absolutely central to the post-war consensus. Wilson’s framing makes it seem as though the atrocities committed by the Germans during the Second World War, real or imagined, are merely an incidental fact accepted by all rational people. This framing is rhetorically effective, because it accomplishes two things. First, Wilson places German atrocities alongside other mundane facts accepted by everyone who knows the history of the war. This would indicate that it is just as foolish to deny the historicity of atrocities committed by the Germans presented by the mainstream narrative as it is to deny the accepted chronology of battles and other relevant political events. The second thing that Wilson accomplishes with his framing is to sell viewers on his idea that Germans committing atrocities isn’t central to the post-war consensus by mentioning it alongside mundane chronological facts. The unstated argument is that everyone agrees that these atrocities happened just as they agree on the order in which battles occurred, so obviously none of these things are central to the post-war consensus that Christians should oppose.

Wilson’s clever rhetoric makes him an effective communicator, but I think that both aspects of Wilson’s framing of German atrocities are false upon closer inspection. I’ve already addressed why I’m a revisionist when it comes to World War II history, so I want to address the second issue. Is the idea that Germany committed unspeakable atrocities during World War II really not central and foundational to the post-war consensus? Are Hitler’s “crimes against humanity” really just accepted facts like the sequence in which battles were fought? Obviously not, and this is where Wilson’s intellectual dishonesty really kicks in.

Wilson is aware of the fact that many young men on the right have been discussing the post-war consensus and its role in reshaping the world that we have grown up in. The post-war consensus has been used to justify the complete deconstruction of the institutions and moral values of our Christian forebears. The result has been that younger generations of men in the West have grown up in a hellscape among the ruins of the civilization their ancestors built, only to see what was taken from them in old photographs and movies. The dissident right is primarily comprised of young men who have identified the post-war consensus as a sacred cow, whose worship is responsible for the chaos and turmoil of modernity. Doug Wilson recognizes this, and so he is seeking to redefine what the post-war consensus is actually about, and for Wilson the answer is relativism.

It seems so obvious that the narrative of German atrocities is central to the post-war consensus that it’s difficult to imagine anyone taking Wilson’s contention seriously. What Wilson says about relativism in the video is good. Relativism has increasingly gained a stranglehold in academia and has acquired a privileged status among the intelligentsia. Wilson also isn’t wrong to point out the extent to which many expect our vague moral consensus to be enforced by society at large without giving much thought to pondering how morality itself is grounded. I think that moral relativism accurately describes the attitudes of many in the post-Christian West who simultaneously condemn those guilty of “wrongthink” while dismissing their own moral failings with the tired expression; “only God can judge me,” in which it is clear that “God” doesn’t refer to the one true God of Christianity.

Nevertheless, that being said, the West has replaced Christian morality with equally strong convictions about right and wrong. People are only advised, “You do you,” as long as this doesn’t entail going against the new moral norms. Self-expression is accepted as long as we’re talking about degeneracy that our Christian forebears would have detested, but self-expression does have its limits. That’s where Adolf Hitler and the National Socialist regime in Germany has become a convenient foil for what modern morality opposes. Some like Corey Mahler of Stone Choir have argued that Hitler was actually a Christian and has been unjustly maligned as a pagan occultist. I haven’t studied this issue and don’t have a strong opinion one way or the other, but Hitler’s personal beliefs aren’t particularly relevant to the post-war consensus.

Hitler and the Nazis are hated and despised, not for anything they did against Christianity, but because they were nationalists who were pro-white and anti-Jewish. The supposed atrocities of the National Socialist regime are identified by the world as the natural behavior of white men, especially when they are in pursuit of their own national interests. The natural evil of white men and innate goodness of non-whites has replaced the Christian doctrine of original sin. The putative slaughter of Jews replaces the atoning death of Christ upon the Cross. Even the word “Holocaust,” which means burnt offering, is pregnant with religious meaning. Whites are collectively guilty for what the Germans are supposed to have done during the course of the Second World War. Atonement is sought by whites in the form of ethno-masochism and acknowledgment of collective “white guilt,” but unlike Christianity, there is no forgiveness of sins. Whites can never be forgiven and no amount of self-loathing will ever make things right.

This narrative is incoherent and self-contradictory, and so it can be challenged on several fronts. Germany was defeated by mostly white soldiers from America, Great Britain, France, and Russia. The Allies also committed unspeakable atrocities against the German population that entirely undermines the Allied claim to moral superiority. Indeed, many of the photographs and films currently used to document Holocaust atrocities actually date to the Allies’ forced resettlement of Germans to Soviet-controlled areas three or four years after the war’s end. And along those lines, to make matters worse, the war cleared the way for Soviet expansion into Eastern Europe, abandoning a generation behind the Iron Curtain. Wilson pontificates against relativism, but there are few things more absolutely rejected by the post-war consensus than white nationalism, “white supremacy,” or Nazism (conveniently defined in broadly Leftist terms). The King of Britain, George VI, managed to denounce the Germans as operating under the “primitive doctrine that might is right,” (famously portrayed by Colin Firth in The King’s Speech) around the same time that the Royal Air Force was intentionally targeting civilians for firebombing.

As those on the dissident right have questioned the post-war consensus, the role of the Jews inevitably comes into play. In this video Wilson complains, “If Germany had won the war, a ‘crime against humanity’ would have been ‘whatever it was that the Jews were doing.’” This succinctly summarizes the assumptions that are at the foundation of the post-war consensus. The Jews weren’t doing anything wrong. They were just a little bit different, and they became convenient scapegoats for the hardships that Germany was facing in the wake of defeat at the conclusion of World War I. Wilson assumes that this narrative is true, but this becomes hard to swallow in light of the fact that “Anti-Semitism” isn’t by any means confined to Germany during the early 20^th century. Indeed, given the many societal restrictions against Jews lifted by the Kaiser, one could argue that Germany was well on the way to becoming the most philosemitic country in all Europe prior to the First World War. Are all expulsions of the Jews explicable on the grounds of unhinged hatred that was in no way based upon the actual behavior of Jews as a group?

Many on the dissident right have come to reject the view of Jewish innocence and victimhood expounded by Doug Wilson. This is especially true as the heinous teachings of Rabbinical Judaism found in the Talmud are coming to light. All one has to do is read what Judaism teaches about Gentiles and Christianity and suddenly the actions of Jews in the modern world and throughout history makes a good deal of sense. This means that things could get very interesting as the philosemitic generation of baby boomers gives way to younger generations of leaders who hold views less favorable to Israel on both the emerging left and right.

Doug Wilson had to make this video because he has enough of a presence online to see the World War II narrative he was taught unravel before his eyes. This video attempts to shift the discussion on the post-war consensus to the topic of relativism. While Wilson has many good things to say against relativism, he is clearly attempting to change the subject. It won’t work because it is far too obvious to those on the dissident right that the post-war consensus is what has made the world ripe for Jewish domination, and the results have been a complete devastation for the Western world. Those who want to fix the foundational problems that emerged after the Second World War will inevitably expand their query beyond the problems of relativism.

            Rich Pierce of Alpha & Omega Ministries is not happy.  He’s upset with Kinists, writing “When they come to the NT they fall apart. Look at my threads, they start with personal attack, then they want to link me to articles that turn Luke 10:36-37 on its head.”  Pierce recently has been counter-signaling Eric Conn and Joel Webbon on X (formerly Twitter).  Pierce took umbrage at Webbon’s suggestion that Jews were uniquely hostile to Christian Nationalism.  At which point I chimed in.  I told Pierce that Jews were in fact uniquely hostile to Christianity and that while I pray for their conversion, that it would be better for Western countries to be free of Jewish influence.  Pierce asked me about a New Testament instruction.  Not knowing what exactly Pierce had in mind I replied, “Sounds good. That being said, I don’t think that Christians are required to tolerate Jews in positions of authority or influence in their societies while also praying and hoping for their conversion.”

            For some reason, Pierce interpreted my answer as being evasive because I couldn’t read his mind and know exactly what he was thinking.  When I kindly asked Pierce what New Testament reference he had in mind he responded, “Romans 11 and 12 cover this entire matter in great detail. Anyone saying the things that you have said here should already know that. I am discovering that almost to a man that your entire movement is entirely ignorant of these things.”

            To this I responded, “We are not obliged to afford unbelieving Jews the influence and power that they currently have in Western countries, and which they leverage for their own benefit to our detriment. That’s the point being raised by my side of this debate.”  This was enough for Pierce to respond, “Repent and be changed.” 

            This lays a foundation for my interaction with Pierce in his thread on the Good Samaritan.  Pierce apparently believes that the Ogden Bros, Joel Webbon, Christian Nationalists, and Kinists ignore the point of the parable.  In response I posted Ehud’s excellent commentary on this passage.  This seemed to break Rich Pierce’s brain as he can’t seem to imagine how anyone could possibly disagree with his own conclusions.  “The efforts that people will go to in order take a plainly stated portion of scripture and deny the very thing that it says will always amaze me.”  I’m amazed as well.  Pierce’s inability to engage opposing arguments, for someone involved in Christian apologetics at that, as astonishing.  In the threads and sub-threads you can see that Pierce never concedes Ehud’s well-argued case that Jesus is calling out the clerical class for failing to live up to the standard presented in Lev. 19:18.  Likewise, Pierce has no answer to Ehud’s observation about the likely identity of the robbers along the route from Jerusalem to Jericho. 

            For Pierce, these carefully chosen details aren’t necessary to address, because the most relevant detail, or seemingly the only relevant detail is the identity of the Samaritan.  Pierce frames the contrast between the priest, Levite, and Samaritan this way, “A Priest (highly placed and honored), A Levite (well bred – the highest of class), A Samaritan (A despised race, lowly in class).”  I think that Pierce’s portrayal is trying to play up the distinction between the priests and Levites on the one hand and the Samaritan on the other as being about class and race while ignoring that whatever prominence that the priests and Levites would have held would have been based upon being members of the clerical class.  Outside of the high priest and his entourage most priests and Levites probably weren’t wealthy due to their being excluded from owning landed property under the Law.  Jesus is definitely calling out the clerical class for their failure to be the kind of shepherds that their office required. 

            Another issue is that 20^th and 21^st century polemics against “racism” really have to be read into the text.  The priests and Levites were from the same tribe, the only difference being that the priests were required to be patrilineal descendants of Aaron, Moses’ brother.  Would the Samaritans have had much of a different physical appearance from the tribe of Levi?  Not really.  The Samaritans were the descendants of Israelites who had acquiesced to the Assyrian conquest and had intermarried with them.  The Assyrians were fellow Semites and wouldn’t have had a greatly different appearance from the rest of the Israelites. 

            The Samaritans even continued to identify with the patriarchs of Israel, like how the Samaritan woman mentions “our father Jacob” in her conversation with Jesus (John 4:12).  The historical animus between the Isrealites was primarily religious and cultural, since the Samaritans were perceived as collaborators with conquerors as well as religiously heterodox.  Jesus even seems to confirm this assessment when he tells the Samaritan woman “Ye worship ye know not what: we know what we worship: for salvation is of the Jews” (John 4:22), while avoiding the duplicity and hatred of those he is criticizing with Parable of the Good Samaritan.    

            This brings us to Pierce’s grand conclusion, “So then who was this man’s neighbor? His neighbor was the last one that they wanted to be and NOT either of the other two! And Jesus tells them to go and be like the Samaritan! Jesus deliberately posed the question this way and His purpose and meaning is as clear as day. All of the book learning, historical studies and theological discourse that you have had in your life is worthless. You need to repent!” 

            Here’s the thing.  No one was arguing for anything like “racial animus.”  Nothing in Ehud’s article or the other comments on any of Rich Pierce’s threads could be construed that way.  The only way to find what isn’t there is to define “racial animus” so broadly as to render it meaningless.  Am I really guilty of “racial animus” when I stated cautioned against Jewish influence in our society?  Recall that I also said that Christians should hope and pray for their conversion?  If someone is suffering from unjustified animosity, it is Rich Pierce in his uncharitable readings of Joel Webbon, Eric Conn, Stephen Wolfe, and myself along with other Kinists. 

            That Rich Pierce isn’t particularly good at understanding arguments (or at least posts on X) and what motivates them can be seen when he accuses Colby Malsbury of “sola ecclesia” and believing that “doctrine supersedes scripture.”  Colby is obviously just making a comment about how Rich Pierce presents himself on social media, not discussing epistemology or the foundations of truth.  Rich should be pleased to learn that Colby is a Protestant committed to the sufficiency of Scripture.  Nothing in Colby’s post could lead one to conclude otherwise. 

            My brief conversation with Rich Pierce brings me to what I see as the main problem with clergy complaining about Kinism or Christian nationalism online.  I think that Pierce made several uncharitable and unwarranted assumptions about myself and others during the course of the discussion, and then claimed that we couldn’t answer his questions…after blocking us and shutting the conversation down.  What’s odd is that no one was calling for something that could fit a Scriptural definition of reviling or hatred.  I stated in the thread that I prayed for the conversion of the Jews to Christianity, but that Christians should be wary of Jewish influence.  I think that Christian societies should not have Jews in positions of power in the government, academia, media, entertainment, etc.  The Christian Founders of the America colonies would have heartily agreed as evidenced by their religious tests for participation in the civic life of the colonies. 

            Does Rich Pierce believe that this constitutes “boasting against the natural branches” mentioned in Rom. 11?  Is this “repaying evil for evil” contrary to Rom. 12?  How exactly does the Parable of the Good Samaritan condemn Kinism?  Is Jesus insisting on allowing or even applauding Jewish influence in formerly Christian societies?  Is Jesus teaching a standard of being a neighbor that requires Christians to comply with their own ethnic and racial displacement in their own homelands?  If not, then why the condemnation?  These were questions that I would have liked to have asked Rich Pierce directly, but alas, he prematurely shut down the conversation.  In spite of his best efforts, these conversations will only grow louder and the issues only more relevant.  Rich Pierce won’t be able to hide in his social media bubble for much longer.   

The recent controversy involving Joel Webbon and the promulgation of the Antioch Declaration has prompted me to explain why I have come to believe the revisionist narrative regarding the Second World War. For context, my reason for delving into this topic is because Joel Webbon is being accused of harboring Nazi sympathies because of his decision not to discipline a member who had the temerity to private send a meme via text that questioned the official narratives of the Holocaust. Pastors like James White, Doug Wilson, and Joe Boot have taken particular offense with those who would dare to question the received orthodoxy of the official narrative. They spearheaded the “Antioch Declaration” to define orthodoxy on the subject of World War II in addition to condemning ethno-nationalism.

My interest in this article is to address this particular claim, “We affirm that if the superabundant, diverse forms and veritable glut of evidence – detailed in diaries, documented records, firsthand testimonies of eyewitnesses, extensive photography and videography all provided within living memory – for the deliberate mass destruction of millions of Jews by the Nazis does not amount to historical certitude for what specialists call the Holocaust, then the science of history itself is called into question.”

Translation: Trust the science! The “science of history”, that is. The irony should immediately be obvious that the aforementioned formulators of this statement – James White, Doug Wilson, and Joe Boot – used their platforms to question the “scientific consensus” behind the policy decisions during the COVID hysteria. These men were able to articulate classic Christian doctrinal reasons as to why the depravity of man should lead us to reject this kind of thinking. Nothing is true merely because some “scientist” like Anthony Fauci says so.

Even before discovering what the Bible taught about race and becoming a Kinist I was already somewhat of a dissident given the world in which I grew up and what I was taught when I was younger. It was only natural that I was open to being persuaded of alternative views of what transpired during World War II. For the formulators of the aforementioned “Antioch Declaration” this would be all that they would have to know about me to write me off. Kinism is dismissed as vague “hate” aimed at the non-white hordes, and so any view that fails to condemn a pro-white regime like Germany during World War II of any of the atrocities of which they are accused is automatically deemed suspect. The issue is so emotionally charged that almost no one can objectively weigh the evidence that is presented against the notion of six million Jews being systematically murdered by Germans.

For me, the issue is analogous to why I don’t “trust the science” and simply nod in agreement with the “experts” when it comes to issues like “climate change,” the safety and efficacy of the COVID vaccine, or the integrity of the 2020 Presidential election. I think that there are good reasons to question the mainstream narratives in all these cases. What is ironic is that I believe that men like James White and Doug Wilson would agree that there are good reasons for my skepticism when it comes to issues like the ones I just mentioned. They are smart enough to see that there is a motive for profit and power that easily explains the motivation for people to lie in order for these narratives to be advanced. Furthermore, both White and Wilson have competently explained the distortions behind mainstream narratives in terms of original sin and human depravity.

When it comes to the historical reliability of the Holocaust and other atrocities of World War II, there are major reasons that can easily explain why people might be inclined to lie about what transpired. The Holocaust narrative has brought about a massive transfer of wealth from Germany and white people in general to Jews and Israel. Germany has had to be pay massive reparations and Swiss banks have had to pay out huge sums of money to the families of putative victims. Every country of the Western world appropriates money for Holocaust propaganda…I mean, education. Celebrity Holocaust “survivors” command large fees for speaking about the horrors of the Holocaust….eighty years after the fact! Hollywood has churned out movie after movie trading on the Holocaust narrative. The power of the Jewish lobby in American politics is well-documented, and acts as a strong disincentive to speaking out on questions of Jewish influence and power or questioning the narrative of how this came to be.

All of this is to say that there is plenty of motivation for people to exaggerate and falsify testimony about what actually transpired in World War II era Germany. But what of the “superabundant…veritable glut of evidence” mentioned by the Antioch Declaration? What do I make of the “diaries, documented records, firsthand testimonies of eyewitnesses, extensive photography and videography?” The Diary of Anne Frank is a commonly circulated piece of World War II propaganda. I remember reading it for a class in grade school. Turn out it’s a hoax.

The documented records tell us much about the concentration camps, but strangely enough don’t mention any sort of plot of mass extermination of Jews. This is particularly significant because British intelligence cracked the German Enigma code and was able to decipher messages going in and out of Auschwitz during the war, with no record of any gassings or exterminations having ever taken place. The major documents that purport to be evidence of this that were presented at Nuremberg are the so-called Wannsee Protocols, but these also seem to be Allied forgeries.

What of the “firsthand testimonies of eyewitnesses?” Many of these are also fraudulent, and have already been exposed in mainstream media. Take Herman Rosenblat. When confronted about this, Rosenblat refused to admit he lied and stated that it was his imagination, but in his imagination it was true. Speaking of active imaginations, Steven Spielberg’s documentary, The Last Days, has been exposed as a collection of atrocity lies thanks to top notch sleuthing. It is thoroughly debunked using primary sources in the documentary The Last Days of the Big Lie.

Much of the “photography and videography” that are referenced are also forgeries that have been edited and were once presented as evidence of what are now accepted as atrocity lies including things like shrunken heads, lampshades bound with human skin, and soap rendered from the fat of Jewish victims. All these things were once accepted as part of the narrative of the Holocaust, but are now acknowledged to have been faked.

The official narrative has changed substantially over the years. Camps like Buchenwald and Dachau were once just as notorious as Auschwitz, but are no longer considered to have been “extermination camps” like those that supposedly existed on the eastern front. What is interesting about this map as well as this map is that all of the purported “death camps” are in the east in territory that was “liberated” by the Soviets at the end of World War II. Significantly, none of these “extermination camps” were liberated by the British or Americans. This means that your American World War II veteran grandpa didn’t witness the “death camps” with his own eyes.

Even the death toll attributed to Auschwitz is all over the map and has also been substantially revised even within what is asserted in the mainstream narrative. An early commemorative plaque suggested that four million had lost their lives at the camp. This was replaced with a plaque that now gives a number of one and half million. This fact alone has to make any reasonable person question the official narrative as a whole. I remember reading an ADL pamphlet on the Holocaust asking how it would be possible for six million Jews to just disappear (they didn’t). However the same question could just as easily be asked about Auschwitz. How did two and half million victims disappear? Wasn’t the earlier estimate based upon a “veritable glut of evidence” fully in keeping with entirely trustworthy “science of history?” The Germans, after all, have always been notorious for their meticulous record-keeping.

The nature of the purported gas chambers is also effectively called into question by revisionist David Cole in his interview with Auschwitz curator Dr. Franciszek Piper in which Cole points out that visitors are being deceived about what they are actually being shown because the supposed gas chamber was altered after the conclusion of the war. I also do not believe that the infamous Leuchter Report, which demonstrated that cyanide poisoning with Zyklon B did not occur in the purported gas chambers of Auschwitz has not been satisfactorily answered or debunked.

Becoming a revisionist with regards to World War II wasn’t confined to just reexamining the Holocaust. I also learned about Allied atrocities perpetrated during the war like the firebombing of Dresden and mistreatment of German civilians after the conclusion of the war. Much more could be said on all of these subjects. My point isn’t to provide an exhaustive defense of revisionist history when it comes to World War II, but to point out that there are many legitimate reasons that someone might question what they’ve been told happened. This is especially true for Christians because we are to test all things (1 Thess. 5:21).

To be fair to the framers of the Antioch Declaration, I don’t think that they are aware of the degree of the extent to which their generation has been propagandized into accepting the post-war consensus that is now being challenged. If there is one thing that Devon Stack has demonstrated on the Insomnia Stream, it’s the extent to which Baby Boomers were inundated with anti-white messaging about fighting the inner Hitler within all of us. That being said Doug Wilson, James White, and others pushing The Antioch Declaration are displaying their ignorance when they condemn other Christians on a topic in which they are clearly out of their element. Wilson and White are both intelligent and have both have experience commenting on social issues and debating theology. James White is fond of citing the high number of publicly moderated debates that he has participated in and Doug Wilson is the face of the Moscow Mood.

The formulators of the Antioch Declaration have shown a total lack of scholarly humility by uncritically accepting the court-approved narrative of World War II and the post-war consensus. The Declaration was published because of the number of people, especially young men, who are questioning what they have been taught about this war and this consensus. I believe that the evidence that I’ve provided demonstrates that revisionists such as myself come by our beliefs honestly.

This isn’t a delusion, as Doug Wilson implies when he compares husbands who notice to Nabal and advises their wives to make like Abigail and report them to their elders. Somehow, call me crazy, I don’t think that this example applies here, but this isn’t the first time that Wilson has advised wives to disobey their husbands. Doug Wilson seems to consider those questioning the post-war consensus on social media to be angry incels living in their parents’ basement; who hate their fathers and are little better than petulant children worthy of mockery and scorn.

The reason that many young men have questioned this consensus isn’t because we are irrationally angry and thus blame Jews for all of our failures and shortcomings. I can only speak for myself, but I have a good relationship with my family. I’m married with children, and what makes me angry is seeing what the world is becoming and the mess that my children will inherit. Wilson, White, and company don’t seem to understand the difficulties of young men trying to make it in this world, and thus their commentary on contemporary social issues repeatedly comes off as “Boomercringe.” The dismissive attitude of ostensibly conservative Christian leaders in this country, whether coming from Big Eva, Moscow, or Apologia has and will continue to backfire. The Antioch Declaration hasn’t been well received, and the dissident right is gaining more traction as the West continues to implode. The persecution that was able to temporarily silence Jan Hus didn’t succeed a generation later with Martin Luther. The same will prove true for those that believe that the revisionist perspective on World War II can simply be silenced through mockery or intimidation.