On Fascism — Chilled By The Warm Embrace It Enjoys Too Close To Home

“Fascism . . . seeks to regenerate the social, economic, and cultural life of a country by basing it on a heightened sense of national belonging or ethnic identity. Fascism rejects liberal ideas such as freedom and individual rights, and often presses for the destruction of elections, legislatures, and other elements of democracy. Despite the idealistic goals of Fascism, attempts to build fascist societies have led to wars and persecutions that caused millions of deaths. As a result, fascism is strongly associated with right-wing fanaticism, racism, totalitarianism, and violence.” (Historian Dr. Roger Griffin)

“Neither Fascism nor racism will do us the favor of returning in such a way that we can recognise them easily. If vigilance was only a game of recognising something already well-known, then it would only be a question of remembering. Vigilance would be reduced to a social game using reminiscence and identification by recognition, a consoling illusion of an immobile history peopled with events which accord with our expectations or our fears.” (French sociologist Pierre-Andre Taguieff).

“When Fascism comes to America, it will be cloaked in the flag and carrying a cross” (Sinclair Lewis, author of “The Jungle”)

“Hey, haven’t some of us who’ve studied Reconstructionism, “Christian” Libertarianism, Kinism, and Calvinist post-millennialism heard the same kind of stuff coming from some folks in Moscow? But wait — they’re Christians! They couldn’t be into this kind of stuff. I mean, could they?” (Keely Emerine Mix)

5 Responses to “On Fascism — Chilled By The Warm Embrace It Enjoys Too Close To Home”

  1. Ashwin says:

    Ms Mix says: “Hey, haven’t some of us who’ve studied Reconstructionism, “Christian” Libertarianism, Kinism, and Calvinist post-millennialism heard the same kind of stuff coming from some folks in Moscow? But wait — they’re Christians! They couldn’t be into this kind of stuff. I mean, could they?”

    Which shows that you are back to your old ways slinging mud on Douglas Wilson and his associates. One would have thought you had repented of that and had moved on.

    You should write more on the lines of the “Offence of the Gospel – Part I and II” and NOT anything on the lines of “Part III” or like this post here.

    Do not try to look good in the eyes of your leftist friends but rather strive to look good to our Lord.

  2. I appreciate your comments, even though I disagree.

    The most important posts I believe I’ve ever written were the three on the Gospel. But I also live here in Moscow, where the kind of talk to which I refer in this post is all too common. It needs to be exposed as a particularly vicious form of religion that, as you peel back the layers, bears little resemblance to the Gospel. I wish you were willing to peel back the layers of writings, associations, assertions, etc., I refer to.

    And Moscow’s liberals generally don’t like me a bit. I’m not trying to impress them; I can’t. But those who are unbelievers won’t be the target of any Wilsonian Serrated Edge wielded by me.

    Keely

  3. Ashwin says:

    There is this lovely hymn whose relevant stanza I have reproduced below:

    “How sweet how Heavenly is the sight,
    When those that love the Lord,
    In one another’s peace delight,
    And so fulfil the Word.”

    “When free from envy, scorn and pride,
    Our Riches all Above,
    Each can his brother’s failings hide,
    And show a brother’s love.”

    If you insist of regularly rebuking Douglas Wilson, you must regularly take Communion with his congregation. To show the world that Christians are united in spite of our differences. Thus you will also demonstrate that your rebukes are out of love and not out of mean-spiritedness.

    To be his critic you must first demonstrably be his sister in the Lord.

  4. Do you understand, Ashwin, that the reason I criticize Wilson, et al, is because of one reason and one reason only: I believe his actions, associations, and words reflect poorly on the Gospel, and that non-believers unfamiliar with the Christian faith, its Gospel, or its doctrines will believe that the things he represents, very many of which they find odious, are hallmarks of the faith. That’s all.

    I don’t want anyone to discard Christianity because they think they must embrace restrictive gender roles, jettison their horror over slavery, employ a “serrated edge” (you have read that book, right?), mock pacifists, hate Obama, exalt covenant over conversion, mock “revivalism,” and generally believe some truly awful things that Wilson and his followers/partners set forth. That’s the only reason I rebuke him, and that only after talking with him face-to-face.

    I believe that the representation of the Gospel here on the Palouse has been sullied by him. Well and good, except that it turns people off — and, potentially, away from the only hope available to human kind. I also believe silence to be a form of assent. I don’t know why pastors here say privately they’re concerned/repelled by the Kirk and its effect on our town and yet say nothing. I, on the other hand, won’t be silent.

    And yeah, I DO criticize “liberals” and non-believers, but I am steadfast in my intention to never speak harshly to or about someone outside the church. Perhaps that’s one of the things bothering you. Or not.

    Rest assured that the Gospel of Jesus Christ, as it points to our Lord, is the most important thing in my life. I wanted to be counted among its defenders, not among those who accommodated sinful behavior and wrong views in the mistaken notion that that shows “unity” to the world. The only reason I have never taken communion with Wilson is because I respect CC’s worship service and believe that my attendance would distract some and anger others. I won’t use the Table to make a point, if it causes distress to others in his church.

    Keely

  5. Ashwin says:

    I have been following Mr. Wilson’s blog for several months now. I have also read his controversial work on Southern Slavery. Nowhere do I see anything to justify your words about him. Are women in his congregation less happy or less free? Will you forever keep harping on the mistakes of your forefathers? Would you consider G. K. Chesterton a bad model to follow? Pacifists, in times of crises, deserve to be mocked. Opposing Obama and ridiculing him is not hating him – besides it is rich coming from a leftist who’s comrades were particularly unkind to George W Bush.

    However, that is merely a matter of ideology. It has little to do with Salvation. If this is all the trouble you have with Mr. Wilson, you should have no qualms about going to his church this Sunday and taking Communion.

    And don’t worry about the people turned off by offensive behaviour. If that kept people from following Christ, there would be no Christians left. Christians have ALWAYS behaved badly. What do you expect from a bunch of broken misfits? If you are afraid of associating with bad behaviour, stay far away from new converts – they are the worst behaved of all.

    And from the way Christopher Witmer has behaved, it appears that if you actually do visit Douglas Wison’s church, you might actually get a very warm welcome.

Leave a Reply