By Davis Carlton

Doug Wilson has recently responded to criticism from Pastor Bret McAtee with a video on his YouTube channel. Pastor Bret has provided a thorough response on Iron Ink, and Wilson’s blog post has also caught the attention of Vox Day. I have just a few additional thoughts of my own to contribute to the discussion. Wilson begins by stating, “Here we are defending our culture helms deep, and the next wave of orcs comes swarming up the walls. And then suddenly down our rampart a little bit I hear the cry raised by the Kinists, ‘Just shoot at the darker ones.’ I would suggest mildly, and with just a hint of exasperation, that somebody doesn’t know what the Hell is going on!”

This gets off to a rough start. Allow me to convey my own mild exasperation with Wilson’s characterization of Kinism as having nothing more to say than “Just shoot at the darker ones.” This dishonest caricature makes Kinism easy to dismiss out of hand for normies that haven’t done their research to learn what Kinism is really all about. Kinists are realists when it comes to obvious racial differences and are not shy in discussing differences in aptitudes as well as dispositions to particular virtues and vices. That being said, most everyone in Kinist circles sees the darker hordes as pawns that are being manipulated by the globalist elite. Most rhetorical Kinist arrows are aimed at (((fellow whites))) and race traitors who’ve sold out their kinsmen in order to ingratiate themselves to the zeitgeist.

First, as Pastor Bret noted in his reply, Wilson annoyingly equivocates when he denies that mankind consists of distinct races. Wilson prefers to discuss ethnicities as opposed to races, stating that this is the more Biblical way of speaking. The reason that I find this irritating is that Wilson clearly understands what is meant by the concept of multiple races. Wilson himself casually uses terms like “whiteness” or white people in a way that clearly indicates that he understands the idea. Wilson also knows that Kinists are not Christian Identity proponents who deny the common origin of all human races, nor were Christians like Dabney when they could candidly speak of distinct races of mankind in the 19^th century.

Race and ethnicity are related terms and it is certainly true that ethnicity is a Biblical concept (more on that in just a bit). What I dispute is that the notion of race is foreign to a Biblical understanding of anthropology. When people typically discuss race they are referring to the broadest subdivision within the human species. Thus the white race encompasses the various ethnic groups that collectively make up the white/European race. The same could be said for the black/sub-Saharan African race, the Mongoloid/East Asian race, and Dravidian/Indian subcontinental race.

The concepts of race and ethnicity are certainly related with race simply being a broader category. We have hints at our notion of race in passages that subdivide mankind into “kindreds of nations” (Ps. 22:27) and “families of nations” (Ps. 96:7, cf. 1 Chr. 16:28). We also see other words denoting progressively broader hereditary relationships. Multiple families make up clans, multiple clans make up tribes, multiple tribes make up nations, multiple nations make up a people, and multiple peoples or races make up mankind. I honestly believe that Doug Wilson understands this well, which is why I find his caviling about our speaking of multiple races to be annoying at best and intellectually dishonest at worst.

My second objection is that Rev. Wilson accuses Kinism of unjustified racial animosity as well as vainglory. The charge of vainglory doesn’t stick. There is nothing wrong with expressing joy in the way that God has blessed our people. The Apostle Paul does as much in Rom. 9:3-5. To deny this is to reveal gnostic tendencies. As to racial animosity, Wilson seems upset about the content of the now defunct Kinist blog Little Geneva as well as comments made by some on his blog. Wilson doesn’t provide many details about the commentary that he finds, in his words, “appalling,” but he does say that Kinists are eager to talk about the Jews. I find this curious. Wilson insists that whites are committing suicide because of our rejection of God which naturally results in a love of death (Prov. 8:36). Non-whites may be a tool used by whites in our suicidal quest, but ultimately it is whites who are to blame for our own demise.

This only serves to highlight Wilson’s hypocrisy. Why is Wilson able to speak of whites collectively doing something blame-worthy, but Kinists are rejected for doing the same thing with regards to Jews? In his response to Wilson, Rev. McAtee highlighted the complexity of this issue by showing that Jews do in fact play a disproportionate role in the destruction of Western Civilization and the white race via the Great Replacement. There are plenty of godless whites willing to cooperate while they run out the clock on the civilization built by their ancestors, but this doesn’t negate the observations by Kinists as well as others about the role played by Jews.

The whole point of Wilson’s YouTube video is to distance his brand of Christian nationalism from the unacceptable Kinist variety. Wilson suggests that the term “racism” ought to be discarded because it has essentially become meaningless. I agree that the term is meaningless, but I maintain that it was always radical and been used to denounce legitimacy in group attachment and self-preservation. Recent events have only served to bring the question of nationalism vs. globalism to the forefront and the mindless denunciations of “racism” that have been successful for the past several decades have begun to lose their effectiveness with those at least somewhat aware of what is going on.

Wilson, and others along with him have tried to peddle a version of “Christian nationalism” that is able to counter the globalist zeitgeist while trying to avoid the inevitable charge of “racism.” I believe that the result will be vague anti-globalism stripped of any real potency. It’s up to Wilson to prove me wrong. Next I plan to review Wilson’s pair of articles published on his blog with the intent on proposing an alternative to Kinist ethno-nationalism. Spoiler alert: they only serve to vindicate my conclusions.