Throughout 2024, Doug Wilson and Team Moscow proceeded to burn various bridges within Reformed Christendom, which they symbolized by literally burning a wooden model bridge to further drive home the point. This would include Joel Webbon, Ogden Utah, and even Andrew Isker, amongst others, as they, in coordination with the likes of Apologia, crusaded for a year against Webbon, ultimately culminating in the Antioch Declaration, which made noticing behaviors of the Jews a sin (amongst other ridiculous statements). Wilson has repeatedly bashed online anons and called his detractors fatherless, embittered men, mirroring the same language that Jordan Peterson has taken up in recent weeks.
Perhaps, Doug Wilson has decided to rehabilitate his image with many of the anons and the so-called Dissident Right, which makes his recent appearance with Auron MacIntyre, whom the anons (not the groypers) are quite fond of, made for a confrontation.
MacIntyre begins by stating that he read Wilson’s recent article, where he initially agreed with Wilson’s critiques of the phrase “woke right” but saw that Wilson contradicted his own critiques. Wilson’s response is that he believes that it does exist, but that it is unhelpful for discourse, as Neil Shenvi has framed it. Unironically, the phrase was popularized by the likes of James Lindsay, Konstantin Krisin, and Neil Shenvi, so apart from them, it has no place in the political lexicon.
On the subject of “what is woke,” Wilson agrees with MacIntyre’s description that wokeness is “progressive, secular humanism,” but proceeds to reduce it to Critical Theory on top of this definition. The problem with Wilson’s understanding is that he conflates methodology and ideology. Methods are not Ideas. Moreover, the woke themselves define the term as referring to a “double consciousness” towards subtle forms of racial oppression. Since the term derives from black activists, wokeness can most accurately be defined as progressive secular humanism when merged with black liberation theology. Wilson attempts to say that the Right inverts the Oppressor-Oppressed Narrative, but this is a vast oversimplification to both the claims of the Left, which are often vague or subtle, and the Right, which are far more tangible and overt.
Twenty-nine minutes in, Wilson poses the question of why he is being harangued for being a compromiser. He qualified the statement after stating he recommended both The Age of Entitlement and The Unprotected Class, but the real reason he is called a compromiser is due to his philo-semitism. Though Wilson has other theological shortcomings, in which he denies the concupiscence of homosexuality being sinful and goes male feminist, calling women Abigails who should disobey their husbands, the main compromise charged against Wilson pertains to the Jews.
Wilson asserts that elements like Stone Choir and Groypers are in the pews of churches, and he perceives this as a threat, to which MacIntyre pushes back by stating that his authority over a local congregant is more personal, while doing so online looks like a “hectoring grandma.” MacIntyre argues that Wilson is encouraging the rise of Stone Choir, contrary to his expressed desires. He then reveals his friendship with Ryan Turnipseed, who was excommunicated over conversations with Stone Choir.
Additionally, MacIntyre contends that, like the Spanish Civil War, the Right needs to build a coalition to win and avoid infighting—something that was fresh on his mind having attended the OGC conference. While Wilson claims that Franco is hardly ideal, MacIntyre contends that Franco is necessary because the other options would not do their jobs. This was the most interesting exchange during the conversation in which the ideas previously discussed are paired with tangible examples.
The superchats, where the viewers submit their questions, featured a viewer calling out Wilson for calling for a dissociation of Isker and Webbon but not Lindsay and Shenvi, which he ultimately deflects by avoiding his comments on Isker and Webbon. One should not expect that MacIntyre is knowledgeable on the various disputes within Reformed Christianity, nor the recent debate between White and Mahler.
Then Wilson is asked, “By what reasonable mechanisms and strategy would you prevent Black Americans from basing their solidarity on shared racial background?” Wilson’s response is that blacks are an “inchoate tribe with a distinct subculture within America.” Wilson adds that “biblical ethnos can be reasonably applied to American.”
To Wilson, blacks can be a tribe, but whites cannot, which is identical to what Neil Shenvi believes regarding race. The question itself presupposes that one cannot prevent blacks from collectivizing over shared race. Compared to Shenvi, Wilson better handles the question by claiming that Scots-Irish is an ethnos, and even WASPs, but denies this to Whites as a broader race, but this only comes after pushback from MacIntyre. Instead of calling America a melting pot, he refers to it as a chef’s salad. Ultimately, his answer falls flat, especially to MacIntyre’s audience, who understand the tribal nature of politics.
Conclusion
Throughout the debate, Doug Wilson appeared rather uncomfortable and was often bloviating his points. Being a sophist, it might be expected that he would be long-winded, but he appeared out of his typical element, almost as aware that, despite Auron MacIntyre’s friendly disposition, the conversation was more of a confrontation. MacIntyre was not once hostile, unlike certain superchats, but Wilson’s responses were often insufficient on their own merit, especially on the subject of race.
Powered by RedCircle
