Making The World Over Again

“The intelligentsia often divide people into those who are for change and those who are for the status quo.”

Thomas Sowell
Intellectuals and Society

“We have it in our power to begin the world over again.”
Thomas Paine

This is the progressive battle cry from time immemorial. The progressive desires to always start from scratch. He consistently desires to completely ignore the successes that our Fathers passed on to us in terms how we lean into life. All of that must be scuttled for instantaneous and dramatic change. The world must always be made over again. The old boundaries that our Fathers lived by for centuries must be cast down and new borders drawn. Let us begin the world over again by redefining marriage, by redefining gender, by even redefining public bathrooms. Let us begin the world over by making health care a right, by requiring everybody be vaccinated, by shipping our children out to be intellectually mauled by intellectually impoverished government school teachers. Let us being the world over by pursuing solar energy, wind energy, and fubar energy, while shutting down the energy sources that have expanded our life spans and accelerated Western civilization for over 100 years.

Beginning the world over again was the battle cry of Obama in 2008 when five days before the election he boasted that “we are five days away from fundamentally transforming America.” It was heard again just a few days ago when Bernie Sanders, upon winning the New Hampshire primary chirped, “Our campaign is not just about beating Trump, it is about transforming this country.” One never hears a conservative talk this way… not even when there is a need to change in order to undo the random flotsam and jetsam resulting from the “change” wrought by the progressives.

A concomitant of this need to begin the world over is a crisis. It is always the case that the demand for change that fundamentally transforms is because some kind of crisis is upon us which the ways of our fathers cannot handle. In FDR’s era it was the manufactured crisis of the banks failing that demanded that FDR’s brain trust fundamentally transform America. Today it is the manufactured crisis that is global climate change that has the “changers” doing their best chicken little imitation crying that “the sky is falling,” “the sky is falling,” and so we must fundamentally transform America. In the end it is not really change that is needed, but instead the genesis of this cry for change is a combination of desiring to line one’s pocket with the will to power and desire to control populations (you and I).

The people who cry for the world to begin anew are demons loosed from the pit. Listening to them and yoking with them by voting for them is a sure way to impoverish yourself and the generations behind you.

Besides, positive change never comes by the social engineering that these doomsayers always offer as the cure-all for the crisis. You’d think by now mankind would have learned this. Fundamental change comes by winning hearts and minds, and not by giving the keys of legislative authority to a group of people who have more in common with Svengali, Rasputin, de Sade, and Kinsey then they have in common with the values handed down to you by your Christian Fathers.

Changing yourself will do more to make the world over again than empowering these madmen by voting them into office.

God & Dagon / Israel & Philistia

In I Samuel 5 the Philistines capture the Ark of the Covenant after the Israeli’s had recklessly brought it into battle as a kind of talisman in order to manipulate God into giving them a victory over their arch-enemy. Instead the place of God’s dwelling on earth was captured and Israel routed in battle.

Lesson 1 — God will not be manipulated into serving the ends of a disobedient people.

From here the Philistines full of chutzpah over capturing Israel’s God (for that is the way they would have looked at it) decided to dedicate the Ark to their god Dagon. So, they brought the presence of God into Dagon’s temple and sat the presence of God before Dagon, thus communicating that Dagon had triumphed over the God of the cosmos.

However, as we know Dagon was smart enough to know who should be worshiping whom and when the servants of Dagon came in the next morning they found Dagon prostrate before the presence of God (I Sam. 5:3) where he belonged.

The Philistine priests, being good acolytes, got Dagon back up on his feet with the presence of God remaining before Dagon. Some people don’t take hints.

The next morning it was worse than before (I Samuel 5:4). There was Dagon again prostate before the presence of God but this time with his head and hands severed. Dagon had struck the heel of Yaweh by defeating His people in battle, but now God had crushed the head of Dagon. Dagon had failed to submit to God and now he had perished in the way.

Somewhere in this mix someone decided to take the presence of God on a tour of the major cities of Philistia. In what was billed as “The Tumor tour,” they started in Ashdod, they played next in Gath and then in Akron but at every stop on the tour the wrath of God in the way of a plague descended upon the inhabitants of the cities of Philistia until they cried out to have the presence of God removed from them.

Lesson #2 — Nobody captures God and lives to tell about it –especially His enemies. God is Holy and is not to be trifled with.

Finally, the Philistines wise up and decide to try a fleece to determine whether Israel’s God was in all their catastrophes or if it was just a matter of chance. As such they yoked together milk cows who had never been yoked together before (6:7) so as to pull a new cart. The Philistines watched closely to see what would happen and when they saw the never before yoked together milk cows working together to take the Ark straightway back to Israeli territory they knew that God had been among them.

Lesson #3 — There is no such thing as chance. God’s providence governs all.

But this is not the end of this account. Israel, like their Philistine enemies had to learn again that God is Holy and that He is not to be treated casually.

When the ark returned to Beth-Shemesh, the Israelites rejoiced, worshiped, and sacrificed to God. However, a number of them learned what Nadab and Abihu had learned earlier and what Uzzah would later learn and that is God will kill those who treat Him casually and without deference to His Word. Seventy of the citizens had sinned the same type of sin as the Philistines. They looked inside the Ark of the covenant which God had forbidden (Numbers 4:19-20), and they were struck dead.

Lesson #4 — God is angular and will never be made smooth.

The overall lesson that begs being made is that God is Holy and that His Holiness is dangerous to those who treat it casually or to those who disrespect it. Does our understanding of the Holiness of God fill us with a filial fear that fills us with reverence when we are in the unique presence of God as we gather to worship? The reality of God sits upon His people so lightly. Would that we would once again have some measure of comprehension of His Holiness.

Thank God for the covering we have in Jesus Christ who brings us safely into the presence of God so that even when our worship might be reckless, casual, and disobedient we are kept safe from this righteous out-breaking of God’s discipline. Were it not for the work of Jesus Christ to forgive sinners none of us could last long in the presence of God.

Dr. E. Michael Jones Defends the Idea that “Christians and Muslims Worship the Same God” — Contra McAtee & Friends

E. Michael Jones posits that Denconstructionism in English Literature is merely Sola Scriptura as applied to other literary texts.


Dr. Jones, in his many books, is often brilliant in his cultural analysis but when it comes to his commentary on the Reformation and the Reformers he is every bit as atrocious on that subject as he is brilliant on cultural analysis. Below is another example. This is a quote from Jones’ Degenerate Moderns:

“Lutheran ideology unleashed libido to achieve its political and ecclesial ends, and Luther, like Hugh Hefner, discovered that the only way to make use of libido effectively was to create for his contemporaries an escape from the guilt that accompanied its satisfaction. The sixteenth-century equivalent of the Playboy Philosophy was justification by faith alone, culminating in the doctrine of the enslaved will. De Servo Arbitrio, it should be remembered, was published in the same year that Luther married. Luther, in creating his doctrine of the enslaved will, became the first modern man, and Lutheranism became the first modern ideology. Its primary attraction to the hordes of apostate priests and nuns who flocked to Wittenberg to follow him lay in its ability to rationalize sexual license and broken vows.”

So you see, Dr. Jones is an idiot when it comes to his comments on the Reformation. However, understandingly enough Dr. Jones took exception to my characterization and a conversation ensued


E Michael Jones Before you call someone an idiot, it’s always good to know what he actually said. I said that the New Criticism was a form of sola scrptura. Deconstructionism is Talmudic.

Now in order to understand this conversation let us define briefly “New Criticism” and “Deconstructionism”

New Criticism was a 20th century American invented methodology for reading literary texts. It stresses close attention to the internal characteristics of the text itself, and it discourages the use of external evidence to explain the work. As such, matters like authorial intent, usage of words in their original historical and cultural context, historical influences upon texts as well as historical circumstances out of which the text arises are all largely ignored. Some have characterized it as texts where the author has disappeared.

Deconstructionism, as a hermeneutical grid for reading texts takes the New Criticism one further step and eliminates the presence of the text. The text itself no longer has any objective intent or meaning, thus allowing the reader to engage the text to give it whatever meaning the reader can read into the text. The text is deconstructed in any original meaning and reconstructed in the image of the reader.

Now that we have that down we can observe the conversation between myself, Dr. Jones and a few other conversational partners.


Bret L. McAtee 

Dr. Jones,

The New Criticism is merely a 1/2 step away from Deconstructionism. It’s still an idiotic statement. You’re a person who has a mental or learning disability when it comes to all matters Protestant but yet someone who is extremely gifted in analysis on many other matters. You should just put your pen down when writing on Protestantism.

I’ve read tons of your stuff and will continue but you are of Rome and I am of Geneva and never the twain shall meet.

Now about your statement that Muslims and Christians serve the same God?

Note — Dr. Jones has publicly said that Christians and Muslims serve the same God. Since I had his attention I thought I might try to draw him out on that subject.

E Michael Jones writes

 Bret L. McAtee Your intemperate language and unsupported claims are giving Protestantism a bad name.  

Bret L. McAtee I’ll take my chances Doc.

Now … what about your statement that Christians and Muslims serve the same God? 

Dan Brannan Believe it or not, E Michael Jones, you are among Protestants who appreciate your work in many dimensions here. But on the subject of Rome v Geneva — and you’ll forgive my intemperance — you have lost the plot, entirely.

Bret L. McAtee

Doc Jones,

Just to confirm Dan’s statement that your work among the Protestants engaging you here is true here is a list of your books I have read.

1.) Libido Dominandi: Sexual Liberation & Political Control

2.) The Jewish Revolutionary Spirit: And Its Impact on World History

3.) The Jews and Moral Subversion

4.) Jewish Privilege

5.) Catholics and the Jew Taboo

6.) Dionysos Rising: The Birth of Cultural Revolution out of the Spirit of Music

7.) Degenerate Moderns: Modernity As Rationalized Sexual Misbehavior

8.) Monsters from the Id: The Rise of Horror in Fiction and Film

I think this makes me a fan. It certainly makes me someone who is lining your pocket. 😉 Thanks for your work Doc.

However when it comes to the Christian faith… well, my love for you requires I call for you to repent. 

Dan Brannan I’ve probably read half that many of his books, but I long since lost count of the articles, podcasts, interviews and debates of his which I’ve imbibed. 

Bret L. McAtee Oh … and so as to just keep on track Dr. Jones…

What about your statement that Muslims and Christians worship the same God?

Dan Brannan When Papists claim on one hand that Protestantism was actually an Islamic movement, or a Jewish movement, and on the other, that Islam and Christianity worship the same God all I can think is that they are speaking with a Talmudized tongue, themselves.  

E Michael Jones responds to Bret

 Monotheists worship ipso facto the same God. They differ in their understanding of God, not the object of their worship.  

Bret L. McAtee So … Jews worship the same God also?

I must admit that I find this answer wildly unsatisfactory.

Let me get this straight. If Mohammed the Muslim insists that the God he worships is non-Trinitarian, (thus denying Logos) and requires the death of Jews and that the infidel when alive to pay the Jizya tax and that Allah requires Hjra in order to conquer Christians and that Allah takes pleasure in the honor killings of women for the slightest of infractions and that Allah will serve up 70 virgins to warriors who strap on a vest bomb to blow up children (shall I continue?) is the same God as the God of the Bible?

Let me get this straight. If Levi the Jew insists that the God he worships is non-Trinitarian, (thus denying Logos) and insists that Jesus is boiling in semen in hell, and insists that the Jews are their own Messiah, and commands the Gentiles must have fixed upon them the Noahide laws, and teaches that a woman’s unborn child is “rodef” and so can be killed, and teaches that Jews cannot be held responsible if they kill a gentile you believe this “ipso facto the same God” the Christians serve.

Dr. Jones … I can’t believe you really believe that

Rev. John Rutowicz writes,

 Dr. Jones’ confession does not sound like the confession of a Christian but that of a monotheistic type of Perennialist. The Christian agrees with St. John “Whoever denies the Son does not have the Father either; he who acknowledges the Son has the Father also.” 1 John 2:23 

Bret L. McAtee Jesus speaking to the Monotheist woman in John 4

22 “You worship what you do not know; we know what we worship…”

E Michael Jones  responds to Bret L. McAtee 

Muhammad worships a God whom he does not understand. Jews worship money. The quote from John 4 makes my point not yours. 

Dan Brannan You cannot worship something which you do not know. That’s the point of the verse Rev. McAtee quotes.

Which is why Hebrews 11:6 says “And without faith it is impossible to please God.” Faith has doctrinal content. 

Bret L. McAtee responds,

Dr. Jones,

Pray tell, how is it that you know that Mohammed worships a God whom he does not understand? What text tells you this?

It seems by my observation that Mohammed understands perfectly the nature of Allah as seen by the fact that the character of the demon God Allah becomes incarnated in the sons of Allah, just as the character of the Jewish demon God is incarnated into the sons of the Jewish demon God.

It seems we ought to take seriously what the sons of Allah would say here. I’m confident that they would say that they do indeed understand whom they serve. They serve a Unitarian God which Scripture itself says is no God.

“Whoever denies the Son does not have the Father either; he who acknowledges the Son has the Father also.” 1 John 2:23

But I understand here that you are making the same error that C. S. Lewis made in his novel, “The Last Battle.” In that novel Lewis has the servants of Tash being accepted by Aslan because those servants didn’t really know they were serving Aslan when they were serving Tash. This error seems to be the error that many Pelagians, semi-Pelagians, and Arminians make.

You are being inconsistent Dr. Jones. If the sons of Allah serve the same God as the Brothers of Christ serve then so do the monotheistic Jews. 

E Michael Jones responds to Bret,

 Bret L. McAtee The intensity of your opinions is in inverse proportion to their plausibility. 

Bret L. McAtee Says you Doc.

Anyway …. thanks for what you get right despite your denial of logos. I can see the hand of God’s common providence in your work. Your work has helped me immensely. 

I do think you are not marketing yourself well in order to sell as many of your books as possible Dr. Jones. Your natural market is unto conservative Christians and when you start going all “Christians and Muslims worship the same God,” you are at that point alienating your natural constituency.

But … it’s your dime.

By the by … if Christians and Muslims worship the same God does that mean that moral Muslims are accepted by God?

E Michael Jones writes,

Bret, I never said that Islam was efficacious for salvation.

Bret L. McAtee I know you didn’t say that. I was asking just to make sure where you were on that.

Dan Brannan If Islam is not efficacious for salvation, they are not, in fact, worshiping the true God. Because worship of the true God is the prerogative of the Regenerate, not Heathen, nor Reprobates. 

Bret L. McAtee 

Dr. Jones,

In point of fact it is not possible for Muslims to worship the same God as Christians since worship of the one true God can only occur as one is covered by the Son and united to the Son.

5 Therefore, having been justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ,

No faith in the covering of Christ … no peace with God … no worship of God.

As such (as Dan has implied) either Muslims in their worship are accepted by God OR Muslims and Christians don’t worship the same God.

Stuart DiNenno Christians are monotheistic and worship the true God. Muslims are also monotheistic, therefore Muslims must also worship the true God.

John drives a car which is a Mercedes. Harry also drives a car, therefore Harry must also drive a Mercedes.

Bret L. McAtee John drives only one car which is a Mercedes. Harry drives only one car which is a beat up Kia Forte.

John and Harry drive the same car.


Waltzing With Rome

A couple self-important Catlicks decided to take out after the Reformation mocking Martin Luther and insisting that the Reformation really wasn’t necessary.

My response?


Rome … forever protesting the Reformation despite the fact that they were

1.) Selling forgiveness
2.) Denying the plain meaning of Scripture
3.) Lifting the Church in its authority above Scripture’s authority
4.) Perverted nunneries and monasteries
5.) Grifting the rank and file with superstitious pablum
6.) Iconadules foisting idolatry on the Church
7.) Ubiquitous Simony
8.) Illiterate Priesthood
9.) Persecution of the Saints
10.) Anathematizing the Gospel
11.) Blaspheming Christ via dumbass Eucharist doctrines
12.) Mariolatry
13.) Multiple Papal claims simultaneously
14.) Turning Salvation into a human performance contest
15.) Laughable and idiotic elevation of relics to worship status
16.) Fundraising by purgatory
17.) Blending the Occult with the Faith
18.) The vile presence of the Bastard Jesuits

But, y’all go ahead with your bloviating about the Church not needing a Reformation. Whatever helps you keep your miserable Christ dishonoring lives together.

Cort Kirkwood continued the conversation

Father Martin Luther “reformed” nothing.

BLM responds,

Yeah right. Never mind the Reformation that came

1.) In the Table.
2.) In the number of sacraments.
3.) In the Priesthood of ALL believers
4.) In the Authority of Scripture over the Magisterium
5.) In the tyranny of the Church exercised over the laity
6.) In Ecclesiology
7.) In Soteriology
8.) In Anthropology
9.) In social order
10.) In the nature of the ministry (sacerdotal vs. ministerial)

The Reformation Reformed every area of life. For anybody to insist to the contrary just testifies to a willful blindness born of fish face bias.

CK wrote,

Hanging his hat on those abuses, he staged a revolt and invented a new religion to rationalize his sexual and other misbehavior, as well as to dispose of guilt owing to the sin of scrupulosity, which we know today in some cases to be obsessive-compulsive disorder.


Actually, Brother Martin staged a counter-revolution against the Revolt that was Rome. Rome had long revolted against Scripture and Martin revolted against that revolt.

Quite obviously then Martin did not invent a new religion but returned to the Christianity of Scripture.

And sexual behavior? I know you don’t want to get into the perverted sex habits of Rome’s finest. Give Luther credit… at least he wanted his sex in the proper boundaries of marriage, unlike countless numbers of Priests, Popes, Monks, and Nuns.

CK brilliantly wrote,

That is why he denied free will, fiddled with the text of scripture, and jettisoned scripture that undermined his new religion.


He denied Free Will because the Scripture denies free will. He fiddled with the text of Scripture in order to undo all the fiddling that the fiddlers of Rome had done.

And he jettisoned nothing of Scripture.

It never amazes me how stupid Rome continues to be on these matters.

McAtee vs. DeGroot; Does Secularism Exist, etc.?

Recently, I had an exchange with a chap whose claim to fame is writing for a Libertarian publication.

Christopher DeGroot wrote,

So, wars per se are driven by “secular powers”? How very convenient for one’s religious bias! Is it also true that everything good in the world derives from religion? And everything bad from secular types (and perhaps also Democrats?)

  • Bret L. McAtee

    Yes, it is true that everything good in the world derives from Biblical Christianity. And yes everything bad in the world derives from a secularism that is driven by religions other than Christianity. (Secularism, being a myth and all, it has to first be posited upon and driven by some alien religion.) Finally wars are always driven by religion. There is nothing that exists that isn’t driven by religion.

  • Christopher DeGroot

    Dazzlingly brilliant comments! How the goal posts shift with all the comfort and convenience of a La-Z-Boy Chair! Providence itself is guiding you, I have no doubt. So, there was no good in the world before Christianity? If so, why did the world exist before Christianity? If your answer is, “to make way for Christianity,” then why did it take so long for Christianity to come upon the scene? Why is it that historically most religions have not even been monotheistic? Was Plato’s life without goodness? What about that of Confucius?

  • Bret L. McAtee

    1.) Why, of course Providence is guiding me. There is nothing that Providence doesn’t guide. Even your smart-ass rejoinders.

    2.) There has never been a time when Christianity hasn’t been. So, naturally, there was never a time when anything good in the world existed before Christianity or its Hebrew anticipation. In point of fact, without Christianity there is no ability to distinguish good and evil and so when one talks about “no good before Christianity,” one might as well be saying, “wero 087yx zcvvbwe co98gws.”

    3.) The world did not exist before Christianity. As it is the case that God created the heavens and the earth, and as it is the case that the Christian God’s word was flouted in the Garden resulting in the Christian God casting out our first parents, it seems rather obvious that Christianity, at least in its Hebrew anticipations existed before the incarnation of the God-Man who had the title “Christ.” (It’s why we can write of “Christophanies” in the OT.) So you see, Christianity was there from the beginning.

    4.) Most religions have not been monotheistic because they were and are of their father the devil. Even the one’s which putatively monotheistic and denied Christ (Talmudism, Islam, etc.) were of their Father the devil. Besides, you don’t really think that one comes to truth by counting noses do you? All because most religions have not been monotheistic therefore monotheism isn’t true?

    5.) Yes, Plato’s life was without redemptive goodness, though on a sliding scale Plato has things in his life which were less bad than others, though in an absolute sense they could never be called good. There is only one that is good.

    6.) Same goes with Confucius. And just so we are on the same page… the same goes with Mohamed, Zarathustra, Mani, the Buddha, Joseph Smith, Mary Baker Eddy, and any other false prophet you might want to conjure up.

    Shall we continue? I promise you, by dazzling brilliance is a well that has no bottom.

    Christopher De Groot

Bret L. McAtee, frankly, I think you are a joke, so I am not interested in wasting more time on you–all you are good for is amusement. You have not answered a thing; nor, it seems, do you know what it means to make a coherent and substantive argument. It is a FACT–whatever you may think or say–that Christianity came very late in human history. This I pointed out. Your dogmatic response: “Christianity always was.” Most religions have indeed been polytheistic. Your dogmatic response: “Polytheism is the work of the devil.” And so on and so forth. Maybe you really think you have demonstrated something with these assertions. Anyway, you are just not serious, nor is your stupidity allied to conceit worth my time.

Bret L. McAtee responds,

1.) I have already taught you how it is not the case that Christianity is a johnny come lately religion. I taught you that Christianity was present in the anticipation of the faithful expressions of the Hebrew Old Testament religion. That Christianity as a religion began with Christ is really quite the heresy that no knowledgeable Christian embraces. If that were the case we would just excise the Old Testament.

2.) But Polytheism is the work of the devil. It is the work of men seeking to avoid the unavoidable Christian God so as to make an idol for themselves. I’m not sure what that is so difficult to understand.

3.) You seem to continue to be under the illusion that all because polytheism has been popular therefore polytheism is true and the monotheism that is Christianity is false. That is most strange reasoning.

Most men throughout history believe that Stalin didn’t attack Poland 15 days after Hitler did therefore Stalin didn’t attack Poland 15 days after Hitler did. You do see how strange this method of reasoning is right?

I am more than willing to allow folks to determine who is the person who is not serious in all this Christopher.