Thank you for shining a light on this madness, Blake.
Also, this is the first time I’ve heard of the Michael Spangler you referenced. There’s no relation but it’s sad to see him tarnish the name. I’m keeping my R.
I'm amazed that you're still coming with that line, Bennet, as if anyone could believe that "light brown homogenous goo scramble" was referring to anything other than what he thinks humanity would look like if all ethnic groups intermixed.
As for your claim Wilson is clear in disagreement with Wolfe regarding ethno-nationalism (which I've more than shown is littered throughout the book that Wolfe himself says promotes "blood and soil"), it apparently hasn't given Wilson any reason to take action. As I wrote, Canon is even planning an abridged version, to rake in more money off of a guy who, among many other things, promoted the Darwinian eugenic pseudoscience of physiognomy a couple months back. Again, I'm amazed you're coming with that excuse.
Thank you for proving the point of the post, that there are a cadre of people who don't pick up on the shtick and keep defending Wilson, no matter what he does.
>"as if anyone could believe that "light brown homogenous goo scramble" was referring to anything other than what he thinks humanity would look like if all ethnic groups intermixed."
I don't know, perhaps the fact that in the very same sentence he says that he is talking about globalization and elsewhere is clear that he believes interethnic marriage is perfectly fine (though you conveniently dismiss this as a virtue signal to keep up the narrative)
>"there are a cadre of people who don't pick up on the shtick and keep defending Wilson, no matter what he does."
This does not describe me at all. I will gladly condemn many things I think Wilson does wrong (he is often too uncharitable, uses unneccesarily provocative language, when compared with scripture he is too patriarchal and I already in my last post criticized his keeping Canon's connection with Wolfe's book). I am primarily concerned here about being truthful in reporting and in my estimation you are flagrantly misrepresenting Wilson's position on interethnic marriage.
In the analogy it’s by putting them in a blender which shows the fact that it is just ridiculous/provocative imagery meant to be an analogy for all of the world’s nations being made one. If we’re talking literally this could be through interethnic marriage (which Doug says is fine), interethnic one night stands, interethnic colonial rape if the borders are no more and god forbid we are colonized. It could happen all kinds of ways that are wrong as well as through interethnic marriage. The point being that this analogy was not meant to be taken literally or to be applied to interethnic marriage specifically. It is provocative language meant to describe a broadly globalist position. That’s it. As I said before (and as every dictionary in the world will back me up on) globalism and interethnic marriage are not the same thing and therefore a critique of globalism cannot be reasonably assumed to specifically be a critique of interethnic marriage (even less so when the person critiquing globalism has specifically said elsewhere that he is not against interethnic marriage).
If Doug agreed with ethno -nationalism and was against interracial marriage he wouldn’t have CN’s at his throat daily for being a PWC boomer. This thread from “Hitler Hated Christ” and the responses to him ([https://x.com/not_our_guy/status/1889788034490540537?s=46&t=vpDSQnr9UF9apjl-jsASxA](https://x.com/not_our_guy/status/1889788034490540537?s=46&t=vpDSQnr9UF9apjl-jsASxA)) show that I’m not the only one in the anti-CN crowd that sees that Doug, while using perhaps unnecessarily provocative language and not fully realizing the bad actors that this edginess can attract, is 100 percent not against interethnic marriage. That thread sums up my thoughts on the issue pretty perfectly (except for the part critiquing “mainstream=liberal” which it most definitely usually does.)
Again, thank you for proving the point of the post. I don’t think I’ve ever seen someone stretch so much to try to explain away something that is, on its face, utterly reprehensible. It’s already reprehensible by “light brown.” It’s ridiculously reprehensible by “homogenous goo scramble.”
I’ve made a promise to myself if a Christian nationalist, a bad one, ever runs for office, I will run against them, no questions act, and I say that as a Christian.
Oh, don't retcon what you did, "Pastor" Jed. Own it. If you haven't noticed, my public writing is generally dedicated to a particular topic. Do you agree with his statement that ethnic intermarriage would render us a 'light brown homogeneous goo scramble"? I mean, that's what you took time out of your day to implicitly defend.
“. . .my public writing is generally dedicated to a particular topic.” Yes, thus, “obsession.” Thus my few peanut shells tossed in your general direction.
I'm fairly certain that some people take some of what Doug Wilson says too seriously. The guy does have a sense of humor, and I'm certain that he isn't against different-race marriage.
Also, it's possible to see both sides of a very ridiculous debate.
Thank you for shining a light on this madness, Blake.
Also, this is the first time I’ve heard of the Michael Spangler you referenced. There’s no relation but it’s sad to see him tarnish the name. I’m keeping my R.
I'm amazed that you're still coming with that line, Bennet, as if anyone could believe that "light brown homogenous goo scramble" was referring to anything other than what he thinks humanity would look like if all ethnic groups intermixed.
As for your claim Wilson is clear in disagreement with Wolfe regarding ethno-nationalism (which I've more than shown is littered throughout the book that Wolfe himself says promotes "blood and soil"), it apparently hasn't given Wilson any reason to take action. As I wrote, Canon is even planning an abridged version, to rake in more money off of a guy who, among many other things, promoted the Darwinian eugenic pseudoscience of physiognomy a couple months back. Again, I'm amazed you're coming with that excuse.
Thank you for proving the point of the post, that there are a cadre of people who don't pick up on the shtick and keep defending Wilson, no matter what he does.
>"as if anyone could believe that "light brown homogenous goo scramble" was referring to anything other than what he thinks humanity would look like if all ethnic groups intermixed."
I don't know, perhaps the fact that in the very same sentence he says that he is talking about globalization and elsewhere is clear that he believes interethnic marriage is perfectly fine (though you conveniently dismiss this as a virtue signal to keep up the narrative)
>"there are a cadre of people who don't pick up on the shtick and keep defending Wilson, no matter what he does."
This does not describe me at all. I will gladly condemn many things I think Wilson does wrong (he is often too uncharitable, uses unneccesarily provocative language, when compared with scripture he is too patriarchal and I already in my last post criticized his keeping Canon's connection with Wolfe's book). I am primarily concerned here about being truthful in reporting and in my estimation you are flagrantly misrepresenting Wilson's position on interethnic marriage.
Please explain to me how “globalization” turns humanity into “a light brown homogeneous goo scramble.”
I need all the details. Explain it to me like I’m five.
In the analogy it’s by putting them in a blender which shows the fact that it is just ridiculous/provocative imagery meant to be an analogy for all of the world’s nations being made one. If we’re talking literally this could be through interethnic marriage (which Doug says is fine), interethnic one night stands, interethnic colonial rape if the borders are no more and god forbid we are colonized. It could happen all kinds of ways that are wrong as well as through interethnic marriage. The point being that this analogy was not meant to be taken literally or to be applied to interethnic marriage specifically. It is provocative language meant to describe a broadly globalist position. That’s it. As I said before (and as every dictionary in the world will back me up on) globalism and interethnic marriage are not the same thing and therefore a critique of globalism cannot be reasonably assumed to specifically be a critique of interethnic marriage (even less so when the person critiquing globalism has specifically said elsewhere that he is not against interethnic marriage).
If Doug agreed with ethno -nationalism and was against interracial marriage he wouldn’t have CN’s at his throat daily for being a PWC boomer. This thread from “Hitler Hated Christ” and the responses to him ([https://x.com/not_our_guy/status/1889788034490540537?s=46&t=vpDSQnr9UF9apjl-jsASxA](https://x.com/not_our_guy/status/1889788034490540537?s=46&t=vpDSQnr9UF9apjl-jsASxA)) show that I’m not the only one in the anti-CN crowd that sees that Doug, while using perhaps unnecessarily provocative language and not fully realizing the bad actors that this edginess can attract, is 100 percent not against interethnic marriage. That thread sums up my thoughts on the issue pretty perfectly (except for the part critiquing “mainstream=liberal” which it most definitely usually does.)
Again, thank you for proving the point of the post. I don’t think I’ve ever seen someone stretch so much to try to explain away something that is, on its face, utterly reprehensible. It’s already reprehensible by “light brown.” It’s ridiculously reprehensible by “homogenous goo scramble.”
“But he said this elsewhere…”
Please reread the first sentence of the post.
I’ve made a promise to myself if a Christian nationalist, a bad one, ever runs for office, I will run against them, no questions act, and I say that as a Christian.
Blake, you cannot marry Doug. For many reasons…
The pastor of Grace Church in Elk Grove, California, showing what he thinks of 1 Timothy 3. Why don't you try addressing the content of the post, Jed?
Cuz pearls and swine and all that. Plus I am under no obligation to take you as seriously as you take you.
Your obligations to your office, and its requirement that you rid yourself of childish insults, have nothing to do with me.
To be clear: I meant nothing as an insult. Low-grade, humorous derision to point out what appears to me to be obsession? Yes.
Oh, don't retcon what you did, "Pastor" Jed. Own it. If you haven't noticed, my public writing is generally dedicated to a particular topic. Do you agree with his statement that ethnic intermarriage would render us a 'light brown homogeneous goo scramble"? I mean, that's what you took time out of your day to implicitly defend.
“. . .my public writing is generally dedicated to a particular topic.” Yes, thus, “obsession.” Thus my few peanut shells tossed in your general direction.
Oh, don’t retcon me, Blake. I’m just here to throw shells from the peanut gallery.
I'm fairly certain that some people take some of what Doug Wilson says too seriously. The guy does have a sense of humor, and I'm certain that he isn't against different-race marriage.
Also, it's possible to see both sides of a very ridiculous debate.
Man it's gotten hard to keep track of post-post-modern political movements.