Doug Wilson’s defense of the Talmud and comments on the USS Liberty in what was clearly not a reductio ad absurdum have made him a massive target, not just in the Reformed online community, but also in the broader right wing, where he was viciously derided. In late November, early December, 2024, there were attempts to mediate that went sour soon after as Wilson broke the peace. A year later, there’s a skirmish.
Joe Rigney writes on the situation.
So it’s been a little over a year since the failed attempt between the leaders in Moscow and Ogden to come to one mind. I’ve largely avoided any public commentary on it, partly because I don’t think about it a lot and I have more pressing responsibilities, and partly because it had seemed best to let sleeping dogs lie (everyone had been largely minding their own business and moving on). But since there has recently been a number of festive dust-ups during this festive season, and since I periodically get tagged and asked what I think, I thought it might be helpful to put out there how I frame the whole thing (with apologies for the length): During the meeting here in Moscow a year ago, there were two noteworthy points of agreement (among other things).
One was that Stone Choir was bad news, and the other was that the attempt to slip Nazi iconography into normie Christian stuff was no bueno (the example of the second that we discussed was Samuel Holden’s White Boy Summer video that included the Nazi imagery). Our contention was that slipping the Nazi stuff into a pastiche of images of John Wayne, John Macarthur, Teddy Roosevelt, and Steve Irwin was an attempt to co-opt the WBS meme in destructive ways, and the Ogden guys pointed to Brian’s clarification after the video that they were unaware of the Nazi junk when they originally commended it. All of this was to the good, and why there was optimism after the meeting. So if there was some agreement about the problem, where was the rub? Partly over the seriousness over the issue (how widespread, how grave), and partly over how to address it (denunciations, declarations, statements, etc).
For my part, I noted that denunciations often backfire and simply give the transgressive edgelords the attention they want. Instead, I commended a strategy I’d seen Doug use a number of times over the years, most notably after the publication of Black and Tan. After that book came out, a number of kinists attempted to find safe harbor in Moscow circles, thinking that someone who partially defended the South on constitutional grounds (as Doug did) would be sympathetic to white identitarianism (which Doug isn’t).
So after a number of dustups with the kinists online, Doug published Skin and Blood, partly as a way to clear out that particular error. In the meeting, I described the strategy as “Don’t denounce them; disappoint them.” In other words, if you have some gnarly elements latching on to your community or movement, you don’t need to directly condemn them by name; instead simply say or do things that will disappoint them. “We thought you were so based and awesome but now we see that you’re just another compromiser, etc.”
So my basic exhortation to the gents in Ogden was this: given our shared agreement that Stone Choir and the Nazi imagery used by Samuel Holden are not good, you guys should periodically find a way to disappoint the members of your community who think that you’re on board with that. If you guys think it’s important to talk about Jewish influence on and in the US (and other related matters, all of which we said was perfectly fine), know what kind of folks that might attract (i.e. “Hitler was a Christian Prince,” etc) and be prepared to disappoint them. Get the undesirable elements to break with you because you say or do something unpalatable to them.
If they’re trying to co-opt your thing or steer you by flattery, then communicate clearly that you can’t be steered or co-opted. And to their credit, they seemed to agree with this approach and had said that they had done so at various times on their podcast. We encouraged them to do so more and more. Now here’s the thing: a week after that meeting, the White Boy Christmas video dropped, the Ogden guys promoted it, and we had the back and forth on the Signal chat, culminating in the Laced with Poo blog post, and the Ogden guys leaving the chat. My basic read on how that went is this: The guys in Ogden took my/our advice. But we were the undesirables that they wanted to disappoint. Posting and defending the video seemed to me was their way of saying, “We won’t be ‘steered’ by Moscow” (which, for the record, we weren’t attempting to do). And while I’ll admit that this was somewhat disappointing to me, I’ve basically viewed it as a strategic decision on both sides about how and with whom we want to labor. Ogden is basically saying, “We want to build and fight on our part of the wall, in our way, with guys like the Holdens and the Crusader anons who listen to Stone Choir.” And we’ve said, “We’re going to build on our part of the wall in our way, which means periodically disappointing those who stan for Nazis and laughing at those who like to call Doug a “fat rabbi who makes incomprehensible word salads.”
And honestly, while I wish it wasn’t so, I’m actually content with the situation. As I argue in Leadership and Emotional Sabotage, we’ve brought the sublimated conflict into the open and clarified it. And then we’ve all placed our bets on how to build and who to build with, with much of the flare-ups downstream from those decisions (It’s all in Girard, man). Some are convinced that Moscow is about to implode or is withering away, that the Spirit has departed, and we’ve doomed ourselves. I guess we’ll see. In the meantime, there really isn’t any ill will on our end, despite the public insinuations that we’re paid by Mossad, that we’ve sold out to the Jews, or the Longhouse, or the Jewish Longhouse, in order to get platformed. We find those sorts of claims amusing and make jokes about them in staff meetings. And they don’t keep us from appreciating some of the good stuff coming out of Ogden. I listen to Ogden podcasts occasionally (but only the good parts). And Doug is currently reading Reviling Wives with benefit. So there you have it.
Joe Rigney brings up the White Boy Summer meme video that featured imagery from the 1936 Olympics, as something to denounce, discourage, and the memers as people to disappoint. The Holden Brothers are solid Christian men who did not sin in their meme but offended liberals.
The timing on this one is interesting. For those who missed it, Doug has been getting shelled from all over the place, not just the little Reformed ghetto, for comments he made at AmFest—including his ad absurdum about the attack of the USS Liberty, and his support of the Talmud (“Two Cheers for the Talmud!”).
I appreciate your loyalty, Joe. I really do. And I think it’s an incredibly savvy post—rather than addressing any of Doug’s controversial or pro-Talmud claims (“There’s gold in them there hills!”), you redirected the conversation to attempt to divide the (very diverse) group of folks who’ve expressed criticism of Doug’s arguments. I’m actually quite impressed.
Instead you rehashed your distorted version of a history that few will take the time to sort through (I don’t blame them). You’re banking on them trusting your reputation and moving on. The obvious aim in this was to yet again portray Moscow as the innocent victim, when Doug was quite obviously the instigator and aggressor.
In truth, we all met last year in Moscow, disagreed with a ton, and we refused to denounce the whole WBS thing. We also were fine maintaining unity across such a disagreement. Doug was not—he penned a papal screed against us that was both untrue and divisive, even in your own churches. We didn’t drop the bomb; Doug did. He is the one that forced the unnecessary division. Revoice for Nazis, bromance with cancer and all that.
The obvious problem: For all your talk of weaponized empathy, and being steered, you refuse to acknowledge the ways in which your camp has been steered by the Jews and/or access to larger platforms. Whose hand is on the steering wheel when you’ll disavow Christian brothers but join hands with Talmudic Judaism? This isn’t an allegation; it is a matter of public record and Doug’s own comments.
And of course you maintain the tired line that Doug has basically never done anything wrong, ever.
I make no predictions about Moscow. There are amazing people there. Many brothers in Christ. We pray for the work regularly. We are deeply grateful for Doug’s past work. And yet still I think Doug should repent for his divisive behavior.
Conn responds by flipping Rigney’s own writing about sinful empathy back onto the Moscow Mood. Eric Conn argues that the divisions were not serious enough to erupt and that Doug Wilson did so anyway. He then implies that Doug Wilson’s rising star is beholden to appeasing Jews, notably Harzoni of NatCon, as shown by Doug Wilson’s defense of the Talmud as being filled with exegetical gold.
The Post War Consensus would have you think that Nazi edits, Pat Buchanan’s book, and David Irving are more morally reprehensible than the Talmud, because in their religion, Hitler is a stand-in for evil. But in Christianity, the holy books of an abhorrent false religion, their blasphemies and wicked teaching, are far more repugnant to Christian sensibilities, and not liberal.
2 Responses
Doug Wilson is, first and foremost, a businessman, not a theologian or scholar.
He is glib and superficial, a seeker of fame.
For all these reasons, he has, of course, let the Jews steer his ship. And, as you note, his liberal egalitarianism, in which his generation is steeped, always shows through in his words and actions.
The Moscow Mood is about as edgy as an average country club republican, but with some flannel shirts.