Cromwell Jr.

If you have a popular podcast, they let you just lie.

I’ve known Michael for many years. I don’t recall when we first met in person, but we became friends over three years ago. For much of that time, he lived near me. We’ve been to each other's houses. Our families have had dinner together, and our kids have played together. On a few occasions, he volunteered to help me with projects on the property: building a deck, moving felled trees, and other things. His wife is kind. He has good kids. Michael was repeatedly kind to me. I’ve spent more time with him than 99% of his critics, though I haven’t seen him much in the last year or so. I once said that Michael is a “friend” and “a good man”—-something used against me for nearly a year now. No critic has asked what I meant by it, and my default response is to ignore such people. I was referring to his kindness and generosity to me, and to his concern for my spiritual well-being, which surpassed that of many people in my life. Mindful of this history, and out of loyalty to a friend, I did not denounce or openly distance myself from Michael as he began to embrace positions that I reject. This came at great personal cost, not only for me but especially for my family. Online agitators and tale-bearers, most of whom are incapable of argument, insinuated that Michael and I are “fellow Nazis,” despite my numerous articles, videos, and books contradicting that claim. I do not expect any session or presbytery to correct these sinful accusations (WLC 144), despite several coming from those vowed to maintain the “peace of the church.” Michael knows the cost of being associated with him. He knows that anything he says places burdens upon others. I chose to endure them. An elderly man at my previous church—known and well respected in both the OPC and the PCA—encouraged me to remain friends with Michael for his sake, and I did. But the post below is a turning point for me. It represents a complete disregard for those who bear the costs of any degree of association. When consideration of others goes repeatedly unreciprocated, there comes a breaking point. It begins to look like exploitation. Obviously, “Christian prince” is a term I retrieved from the Protestant tradition, and it immediately recalls my work. Michael had to know that I, yet again, would be dragged into accusations of Naziism, even from those of decent will. He chose words (when there are alternatives) that instantly recall “Stephen Wolfe.” It is an act of betrayal. He has not considered how his actions affect others. He could have easily added, “I know that Stephen Wolfe does not agree with me.” But he did not. As I’ve said for years now, I have no interest in retrieving Naziism, nor do I want a “Protestant Hitler.” Michael knows this, as I’ve said to him (among others) that revising 1930s German history is unnecessary to critique the “post-war consensus”. I am right-wing, but I am an American. By today’s standards, American history is right-wing, and it contains all the resources for recovering a manly, moral liberty and a Christian society. Anglo-Protestantism, despite its faults, is still the core tradition of America. Our fight is to recover it. I have a high tolerance for differing opinions. I do not shy away from references to Marx, Nietzsche, Hegel, Heidegger, or “critical theory.” Viewing everything with the good/evil binary, or relying on a set of scary words to categorize intellectual history and various individuals, is unserious. I even use Marx in my MA philosophy thesis. But I would not say that we need a “Protestant Marx” or a “Protestant Heidegger”. We need a George Washington. Given Michael’s behavior—his disregard for my position and the effects of his actions—I can no longer consider him a friend. But I will not take on a mission to destroy him. I will not toss epithets at him or make quips for spectacle. I simply cannot continue in what I consider an exploitive relationship. I pray that Michael and his lovely family would live well in godliness.

You were able to identify where the dullards slandered Stephen. Can you not employ those same powers to identify where Stephen may have slandered Michael? Stated: a complete disregard for those who bear the costs of any degree of association; consideration of others goes repeatedly unreciprocated; look like exploitation; an act of betrayal; has not considered how his actions affect others. Implied: all sorts of things beyond comprehensive qualification. E.g. unreasonable, poor friend, etc. Also because of this I have already seen Michael get slandered repeatedly in GCs. Michael's association and investment in Stephen also had a cost, and now he is paying it at the hands of Stephen. But nobody is going to mention that.

I'll add, by embracing the name "Hitler" we are forced to repent for our American complicity in the ruin of the modern world, by fighting for the Jews and Communists in WWII. Without such repentance, no Hitler, no Franco, no Josiah, could ever save us from the wrath of God.

"Protestant Hitler" is the right term for the Christian prince we need today. By "Hitler" we name our need for ruthless anti-Judaism and anti-leftism, without which our nation will never be rescued. But by "Protestant" we name our urgent need for solid piety.

I’ve known Michael for many years. I don’t recall when we first met in person, but we became friends over three years ago. For much of that time, he lived near me. We’ve been to each other's houses. Our families have had dinner together, and our kids have played together. On a few occasions, he volunteered to help me with projects on the property: building a deck, moving felled trees, and other things. His wife is kind. He has good kids. Michael was repeatedly kind to me. I’ve spent more time with him than 99% of his critics, though I haven’t seen him much in the last year or so. I once said that Michael is a “friend” and “a good man”—-something used against me for nearly a year now. No critic has asked what I meant by it, and my default response is to ignore such people. I was referring to his kindness and generosity to me, and to his concern for my spiritual well-being, which surpassed that of many people in my life. Mindful of this history, and out of loyalty to a friend, I did not denounce or openly distance myself from Michael as he began to embrace positions that I reject. This came at great personal cost, not only for me but especially for my family. Online agitators and tale-bearers, most of whom are incapable of argument, insinuated that Michael and I are “fellow Nazis,” despite my numerous articles, videos, and books contradicting that claim. I do not expect any session or presbytery to correct these sinful accusations (WLC 144), despite several coming from those vowed to maintain the “peace of the church.” Michael knows the cost of being associated with him. He knows that anything he says places burdens upon others. I chose to endure them. An elderly man at my previous church—known and well respected in both the OPC and the PCA—encouraged me to remain friends with Michael for his sake, and I did. But the post below is a turning point for me. It represents a complete disregard for those who bear the costs of any degree of association. When consideration of others goes repeatedly unreciprocated, there comes a breaking point. It begins to look like exploitation. Obviously, “Christian prince” is a term I retrieved from the Protestant tradition, and it immediately recalls my work. Michael had to know that I, yet again, would be dragged into accusations of Naziism, even from those of decent will. He chose words (when there are alternatives) that instantly recall “Stephen Wolfe.” It is an act of betrayal. He has not considered how his actions affect others. He could have easily added, “I know that Stephen Wolfe does not agree with me.” But he did not. As I’ve said for years now, I have no interest in retrieving Naziism, nor do I want a “Protestant Hitler.” Michael knows this, as I’ve said to him (among others) that revising 1930s German history is unnecessary to critique the “post-war consensus”. I am right-wing, but I am an American. By today’s standards, American history is right-wing, and it contains all the resources for recovering a manly, moral liberty and a Christian society. Anglo-Protestantism, despite its faults, is still the core tradition of America. Our fight is to recover it. I have a high tolerance for differing opinions. I do not shy away from references to Marx, Nietzsche, Hegel, Heidegger, or “critical theory.” Viewing everything with the good/evil binary, or relying on a set of scary words to categorize intellectual history and various individuals, is unserious. I even use Marx in my MA philosophy thesis. But I would not say that we need a “Protestant Marx” or a “Protestant Heidegger”. We need a George Washington. Given Michael’s behavior—his disregard for my position and the effects of his actions—I can no longer consider him a friend. But I will not take on a mission to destroy him. I will not toss epithets at him or make quips for spectacle. I simply cannot continue in what I consider an exploitive relationship. I pray that Michael and his lovely family would live well in godliness.