Saturday, January 14, 2017


   An article we published on Tuesday about the radicalization of young men by pseudo-Christian cults led blogger Insanity Bytes to draft an open letter to Pastor Doug Wilson. The link to her post is here. Wilson is frequently quoted by these Red Pill/Manosphere writers whom---as we've mentioned before---is really more like a cult: hostile to both Christianity and Conservatism.

    Pastor Wilson himself is head of a Reformed Church congregation in Moscow, Idaho. Some of things he's written on race-relations and some of his revisionist history regarding the US Civil War are controversial to say the least. But those things aside, he wrote a reply to Insanity Bytes, and by extension this blog: the text of which is here.

   The general tenor of his response is that, while he agrees that Dylann Roof deserves execution for his crimes; he feels that extremist rhetoric has little do with the root causes of such crimes---and is not relevant anyway. This in spite of his claims further on in the article that extremist Liberal rhetoric is the root cause of Far Right extremism. He claims, for example, that Liberal abuse of terms like 'racism' actually encourages non-Liberals to be racists; and that---in cases like Roof's which lead to murder--- only the deed and not the motivation should be considered.

    The question that I would pose to you, sir is: Would you make this type of argument if we were discussing Islamic, as opposed to Christian, radicals? Would you seriously argue that young men are radicalized into Wahhabi and Salafist Jihadist cults because the Western media depicts 'all Moslems as terrorists'? And that the Madrassas and ISIS propaganda don't radicalize anybody?

     This is what Pope Francis meant when he stated recently that the tongue was a greater weapon than guns or bombs. To draw an analogy: if you give a farmer in Idaho a gun and explosives, he'll probably use one to hunt for game and the other to clear stumps, or boulders from his property. Convince him that the Black family down the road is biologically primed to rape and murder his wife and daughter; that sinister Jews are encouraging them to do so; that women are irresistibly attracted to such men; and that it his Christian duty to defend them---in that case, the peaceful farmer may find a more deadly employment for such implements.

     You may argue that, according to the Letter of the Law, that the one who convinced of these falsehoods is not legally liable; but as Pope Francis said, the moral and spiritual liability is self-evident. It may be so that Judas was responsible for betraying Jesus; but the Pharisees who offered the reward and the Devil who tempted Judas are not innocent. One cannot simply wash his hands, and assume like Pontius Pilate did, and say "The blood be on your hands."

     This is precisely what these Red Pill/Manosphere bloggers are doing---and using Christianity as a cover. They openly advocate violence against women, the overthrow of democracy, and sow dissension between races and even among Christian denominations. Then when someone acts on their teachings, they disclaim any responsibility for it.

     The issue is not, as you do, to shift the responsibility onto Liberals and claim "I don't blame movement Conservatives for it." I will blame them. For decades now, mainstream Conservatives have sat passively on the sidelines and not put a decided stop to any of this. The resurgence of the Far Right is not a spontaneous phenomenon that's risen in righteous indignation against Liberal excesses---it's the gradual culmination of Conservatives refusing to stand against it: first with Talk Radio; then with outlets like Fox News; then with the Internet.

      Don't imagine that ignoring it is going to make it go away. The Red Pills argue that most Christian denominations are false and that most Conservatives are compromised. They are not our allies. Please understand that they are just as much the polar opposite of our position as the Radical Left is.


  1. I am deeply interested in your claim that the alt right "frequently" quotes Wilson. I have seen IB2's collection of the links to Wilson's article about hating women recently, but is it really true that they quote him frequently besides that?

    1. I'm not certain that Wilson is the MOST quoted, but he is one of the only ones I know of who's quoted favorably. Those blogs IB and I mention often attack prominent ministers; and fairly regularly at that.

    2. Wasn't really concerned about whether he is "most," just whether he has been quoted "frequently." One time favorable mention isn't really frequent.

    3. Ibmiller, If you genuinely wish to take note of the relationship between the red pills and Doug Wilson, I would suggest googling "Vox Day, Doug Wilson" Or "Dalrock, Doug Wilson."

      As I have done here,

      "Frequent" is a somewhat subjective word. So how about substantial? I have read a substantial amount of favorable blog posts and comments about Pastor Wilson over the past few years.

    4. My concern with Pastor Wilson is not so much that these bloggers quote him; it's that he seems unconcerned with how they use his words. His article seemed to fall back on the excuse that "Liberals do it too!" As a pastor, he should strive to imitate Christ, and not the American Left.

    5. IB2 - I try not to go on Vox Day's site, it makes me feel more than a bit sick. Substantial is different than frequent - troubling indeed, but not what is claimed in this article. As I say over on Doug's blog, I do think that his response was not as well phased as it should have been.

      I don't think he's saying "Liberals do it, too," I think he's saying that two wrongs make a right. Not good, but he's not the one who is striving to create a deeply sick community. He's spoken out boldly against the central sinful tenants of these pits of depravity - calling them skinist, etc. Am I super happy at his latest post? No, and I've said so. But I think there's a difference between this concern and claiming that he's frequently quoted.

    6. Well, I don't want to quibble over the technical difference between "frequent" and "substantial" nor do I really want to attack Pastor Wilson. What I really want is simply for some more Christian men to start paying attention to the process of radicalization, the amount of hatred being spoken in Christ's name, so we can work towards changing the narrative, getting back to spreading the gospel and speaking life over people. That's my dream, however foolish it may seem.

      Whether we like it or not, it is people like Vox Day representing Christians. Would you chose to follow Christ if VD was your introduction to Him? So you know, souls are at stake, lives, and the persecution of Christians over all.

      One thing Wilson does not seem to grasp, many of these people are openly attacking pastors, endlessly mocking churchianity as a great evil, and encouraging hostility towards the church. So just because people are alt-right or share your politics, or claim to be Christians, does not mean they are allies.

      I cannot spin for Pastor Wilson anymore, I cannot try to weave excuses around what he is doing. He's made his feelings known and he's dropped the ball one too many times. He does not "speak boldly," to speak boldly is to take a stand against evil and to name it for what it is.

  2. I disagree that Vox Day represents Christians. Even the mainstream recognizes that he's a fringe element, even if their insanity leads them to cry wolf at actual conservatives. Vox Day is evil. I loathe his work, and every time I peek at his website, I feel absolutely filthy and sick. But I don't think Wilson is saying the same things at all.

    I'm a bit confused about what you think Wilson is doing? I would tend to agree that, at least in phrasing, his latests post on the subject is a dropped ball - but he has named the evil of racism and hatred of women for what it is elsewhere, and loudly.

    I am troubled by the fact that he does not ban the obvious racists and misogynists from his comments sections - but I'm not sure if he's necessarily wrong. He does not agree with them, but silencing them does not make them go away. I could wish (perhaps this is what you're saying) that he were more active in fighting them - but that's not the way he generally interacts with any of his commentors, and he has made his opposition to the alt right commentors quite recently, in their vile anti-Semitism.

    1. Speaking for myself, this article was written in response to a specific post and not to Pastor Wilson generally because I'm not that familiar with what he's written elsewhere. You're right: I do wish that he (and others) were more active in fighting them.

      The Red Pills like Dalrock and Vox Day are attacking Christianity mostly via Protestantism. (Their views on the Catholic Church range roughly between overt hostility and Sedevacantism). IB is correct that more ministers need to stand up and speak out against what they do, because they are the ones upon whom this cultish attack is mostly focused. They apparently listen to and read Pastor Wilson, so he would have a major influence against their teachings.