McAtee Contra Mattson on Nationalism

“For my part, I will start by repudiating all of these tired old forms of “post-liberalism.” Because it will not end any differently than it did the last time.”

Dr. Brian Mattson

Substack Article

One of the “tired old forms of ‘post-liberalism’ that Mattson is rejecting is Nationalism. Indeed, the whole article is given over to why Nationalism is evil and how it alone is the reason for two world wars in the 20th century. Of course, in order to conclude that one has to ignore the Internationalism that was seeking to conquer the world in the 20th century. One has to ignore as well that a particular and unique kind of Nationalism arose in the 20th century precisely as a defensive mechanism against the Internationalism being floated by the Bolsheviks. Perhaps Mattson is right that Nationalism has killed its millions but he fails to remember that Internationalism killed its scores of millions. Mattson further fails to remember that all because a wicked Nationalism existed in the 20th century that doesn’t mean that a Biblical Nationalism can’t exist or that those who are now advocating for Nationalism in the Church community are not all members of the Franco, Mussolini, or Hitler fan club. In short Mattson’s “lessons from history” and from Bertrand Russel (of all people) are hardly balanced or well informed.

Mattson sems also to forget in his article that in Genesis 11 the agenda wasn’t Nationalism but it was International Empire and that God’s solution to Babel was on one hand to scatter the effort at Nimrod-ian Internationalism while at the same time to raise up a confederation of Tribes, through the lineage of one man (Abraham) to be a Nation that would be a light to the Gentiles. Mattson likewise seems to forget that Jesus himself sanctions nations — and by extension nationalism — when, in giving the Great Commission, He commands His Lieutenants to “Disciple the Nations.” Mattson again forgets that in the book of Revelation we find it is the Nations in their identity as Nations that are found entering into the new Jerusalem. One can easily imagine Brian saying, as he scans the Nations coming in to the New Jerusalem, “is that wicked or what?”

All this anti-Nationalism, issuing forth from Reformed-dom and Evangelicalism is a testimony to a profound misinterpretation of history as combined with a profound misinterpretation of the Scriptures. Sometimes it really seems to be the case that we are being led by the dumbest smart people the Church has ever produced.

Just exactly what is it about Liberalism that Mattson is holding on to that a theonomic Christian Nationalist order wouldn’t provide? Does he prefer the vision of the Great Reset as embraced by Klaus Schwab, Pope Francis, Yuval Noah Harari, and the Davos crowd? Does he eschew the Christian vision of Victor Orban’s Hungary because it smacks of wicked Nationalism to him? Or, as I suspect, is Mattson, like so many other of our Churchmen cognoscenti, holding on to Tolkien’s vison of Saruman? — “We’ll be a kinder and gentler Christian version of Sauron.” “Give us that Christian Orc-ian social order.”

 
 
 This is what kills me. We may be living in a time that has never seen a bigger push towards one World Internationalism and these clowns wearing  their Ph.D. degrees like extra large clown shoes are out there hanging on the cord of the clown tocsin shouting;
BEWARE NATIONALISM.

Examining Michigan’s Proposal 3 On Abortion — Part II

Wherein we continue to look at the Dr. Mengle Abortion Referendum being floated in the state of Michigan.

(1) Every individual has a fundamental right to reproductive freedom, which entails the right to make and effectuate decisions about all matters relating to pregnancy, including but not limited to prenatal care, childbirth, postpartum care, contraception, sterilization, abortion care, miscarriage management, and infertility care. An individual’s right to reproductive freedom shall not be denied, burdened, nor infringed upon unless justified by a compelling state interest achieved by the least restrictive means. Notwithstanding the above, the state may regulate the provision of abortion care after fetal viability, provided that in no circumstance shall the state prohibit an abortion that, in the professional judgment of an attending health care professional, is medically indicated to protect the life or physical or mental health of the pregnant individual.

Bret responds,

Note that the language is sloppy — probably purposely so.

They keep using the word “individual.”

1.) If it really is the right of every individual then clearly, under this amendment, if passed, the parents of children who are twelve and thirteen who get pregnant would have no voice in whether or not their daughters are allowed to have an abortion.

For that matter, since sex is related to pregnancy what the language of this bill does is overturn all laws about statutory rape. If a 50 year old man wants to lure a 13 year old girl into a sexual relationship, under the language of this bill that is perfectly acceptable since the 13 year old girl and the 50 year old man both have;

“a fundamental right to reproductive freedom, which entails the right to make and effectuate decisions about all matters relating to pregnancy, including but not limited to prenatal care, childbirth, postpartum care, contraception, sterilization, abortion care, miscarriage management, and infertility care. An individual’s right to reproductive freedom shall not be denied, burdened, nor infringed upon…”

If an individual has a fundamental right regarding all decisions relating to pregnancy then that individual (regardless of their age or minor status) has a right to statutory rape, incest and even sterilization.

2.) Note that language above that says,

“the state may regulate the provision of abortion care after fetal viability, provided that in no circumstance shall the state prohibit an abortion that, in the professional judgment of an attending health care professional, is medically indicated…”

Health care professional?

Notice it does not say “Doctor.” A “health-care professional” is a large category. It could mean anything from a Doctor’s Physician’s Assistant to a Dentist, to a Natura-path, to a Masseur. For Pete’s sake people, this is supposed to be language amending your state constitution, not a “to do list.” In other words precision is important.

Proposal 3 offers,

(2) The state shall not discriminate in the protection or enforcement of this fundamental right.

Bret Responds,

If the state shall not discriminate we are back to the state, given this language, serving as the enforcer for abortions as potentially for children. If the State shall not discriminate this means that the state is going to enforce this reproductive “rights” for 30 year olds and 13 year olds. This language allows the State to tell Daddy and Mommy to go pound sand in their opposition to their little girl getting an abortion should the little girl want an abortion.

If this is correct then approving proposal three means that we are allowing the will of the State to trump the will of parents in cases where girls get pregnant.

Do you really want Gretchen Whitmer and Dana Nessel enforcing this right against parents?

Proposal 3 offers,

(3) The state shall not penalize, prosecute, or otherwise take adverse action against an individual based on their actual, potential, perceived, or alleged pregnancy outcomes, including but not limited to miscarriage, stillbirth, or abortion…

Bret responds,

The “included but not limited to” language allows for the scenario where a woman decides to give birth to a healthy baby, puts the newborn in a garbage sack, and dumps it in the trash — thus committing infanticide — and then leaves the scene. The language above stops any investigation since such an investigation could easily be labeled as “an adverse action” against “a perceived pregnancy outcome.”

Alternately, what if a woman decides upon the birth of her “deformed” child that she doesn’t want the child and so wants it not to live. As such the “benevolent” Kevorkian type Doctor kills the child thus committing infanticide.  The language above stops any investigation since such an investigation could easily be labeled as “an adverse action” against “a perceived pregnancy outcome.”

The language of this amendment puts the State on the side of those who commit infanticide.

Proposal 3 was written by a lunatic or worse yet someone in the pocket of Planned Parenthood. Vote NO on Proposal 3.

 

You Might Be A Member Of The CREC…

You might belong to the CREC if

10.) Every MLK B.Day you watch again MLK’s I have a dream speech
9.) You still hate Strom Thurmond, George Wallace and Jesse Helms for all the “damage” they did
8.) You have dreams of Doug Wilson wearing his white zuchetto
7.) You sing songs on Sunday that somebody who didn’t understand congregational singing wrote
6.) You can’t distinguish between Kinism and Christian Identity
5.) You keep saying race doesn’t exist and then turn around and talk about the sin of racial malice and vainglory.
4.) You’re constantly chattering about “all my black friends.”
3.) It’s ok for your to refer to “Chocolate Knox” but racial malice for a kinist to quote another black man referring to Obama as “the Magic Negro.”
2.) You think that you prove your “Far Right” credentials by reading the Wall Street Journal as opposed to the New York Times.
1.) You don’t realize that your denomination allows for the teaching of Justification by works.

1.) Just the mention of the name Steven Sitler makes you cranky
2.) You think that plagiarism is only a problem that Doug’s co-authors struggle with
3.) Your Pastor wears a collar daily with a different pastel colored shirt
4.) You don’t think that wrong views of communion are that big of a deal
5.) You constantly defend yourself with “Well, my church is a lot better than the PCA, OPC, RPCNA, URC, etc.” not realizing that is a pretty low bar.
6.) You gnash your teeth every time someone points our Romans 9:3 or Titus 1:12
7.) You know all the lyrics from the latest Snoop Dog album
8.) You think “racism” (whatever it might be) is the worst sin in the bible
9.) You have children named Zebulon, Zipporah, Zephaniah or Ezekiel
10.) You think the only qualification a woman needs to write a book is that she is a CREC pastor’s wife or daughter

Recommending Dow, While Firing Back at the CrossPolitics Utes

Over here Darrell Dow gives a rousing defense of Christian Nationalism.

Christian Defense of Nationalism

It is a defense that nearly all Kinists would be proud to salute. If a Kinist wouldn’t salute it, I don’t know why they wouldn’t.

And yet, at the very end of the article we get this from the boys who drive the crosspolitics.com bus.

From the Editor: We happily affirm the principles outlined in this essay, however, with the rise of kinism in some circles, we want to be clear that we reject that ideology entirely. We understand the principles outlined here to be in harmony with other biblical principles that utterly contradict every form of racial malice, pride, or vainglory.

Now, it should be made very clear here. Darrell Dow had nothing to do with this editorial codicil. Darrell and I, as far as I can tell, are nearly on the same exact page when it comes to Christian ethno-nationalism — that which some people call, by way of shorthand, “Kinism.”

So, what gives with this editorial codicil? Do these boys even know what it is that they are rejecting? Do they know the meaning of Kinism? On the flip side of that do they know the meaning of Kinism’s polar opposite, “Alienism.” If I can’t seem to get through to these blatherskites as to what the Kinism is I support maybe I can get through to them what it is I oppose by opposing Alienism?

https://www.thornwalker.com/recoveries/sobran/pensees.html

One one hand they run an article that I as a Kinist applaud while on the other hand they completely reject Kinism. I figured these guys were at least past the age of smoking weed?

Note that these crosspolitics boys are Doug Wilson CREC fanboys. We know this by their denominational associations and by the fact that they end their editorial codicil with “every form of racial malice, pride, or vainglory.” This is the same language that Wilson used to errantly define Kinism. It seems that Doug’s ignorance is yielding a Walking Dead Zombie infection in the CREC.

Read Dow’s article and tell me that Dow is not advocating for enough of racial/ethnic identity in order to rabidly support the idea that a nation is defined as having a significantly majoritarian racial/ethnic core. Dow clearly loves his people. In the CREC world that rejects kinism that is clearly a form of racial/ethnic pride.

And what does this CREC clown brigade do with Romans 9? How is the Apostle Paul, as inspired by the Holy Spirit, not practicing racial/ethnic pride as defined by these Bozo’s standard when he writes?

 I speak the truth in Christ—I am not lying, my conscience confirms it through the Holy Spirit— 2 I have great sorrow and unceasing anguish in my heart. 3 For I could wish that I myself were cursed and cut off from Christ for the sake of my kinsmen, those of my own race, 4 the people of Israel.

What do the little boys at Cross Politic with their sanctimonious whining about Kinism being a  “form of racial malice, pride, or vainglory,” do with the malice found in Titus 2?

12 One of Crete’s own prophets has said it: “Cretans are always liars, evil brutes, lazy gluttons.” 13 This saying is true. Therefore rebuke them sharply, so that they will be sound in the faith

Are they going to condemn the Holy Spirit who inspired these words?

People like Wilson and his lickspittles act like “Kinism” is a uniform movement with a centralized headquarters where one can mail fan-mail. They act like Kinism is so organized that it has a secret handshake with an anthem everyone must memorize before they get their secret cool Kinist rings. As such they say “Kinism is this,” or “Kinism is that,” as if they are reading off of a dictionary definition. Together in a cult like manner they keep saying in Zombie moaning tones, “Kinism is a ‘form of racial malice, pride, or vainglory.'”

Kinism is a decentralized movement and as decentralized as it is it hardly has one set definition. Think about this for a second folks. Wilson was forever trying to disambiguate himself from the more rabid Federal Visionists. (I still have a problem with his still embraced pale ale.) If Kinists have a more rabid element the main body of Kinists which me and my mates belong to would like to disambiguate ourselves from whatever fevered imagination comes up with the idea that Kinism, generally speaking equals a “form of racial malice, pride, or vainglory.”

The Whoppers R. Scott Clark Tells About R2K

In a blog post at Heidleblog Dr. R. Scott Clark basically tells us that if we were smart like him and had the smart books he has read we would see how foolish we are for daring to disagree with him on Radical Two Kingdom theology. Clark, the anti-nomian, accuses R. J. Rushdoony of writing a talmudic three volume set on God’s law. Well, I suppose to RJR does look talmudic when viewed through the lens of those who hate God’s law.

Anyway, here is the take-away quote from Scott’s first blog post;

“There has been a certain degree of controversy in some quarters of the confessional Reformed world over the recovery of the “two kingdoms” as a way of thinking about Christ and culture and ethics. The qualifier some is important here because anyone who knows the history of Reformed theology knows that faithful, confessional theologians have been speaking of God’s “twofold government” (duplex regimen and duplex regnum) or “two kingdoms” since the 16th century. It is not a novelty but so divorced are enough contemporary Reformed Christians from their own tradition and heritage that when this way of speaking re-surfaced in 2010 it was taken, in some quarters as a radical departure from Reformed theology.”

R. Scott Clark
R2K Theologian

Escondido

Now here we have to say that either R. Scott Clark is historically ignorant beyond plumbing the depths of said ignorance or he is a liar.

It is true that Reformed Two Kingdom theology has been around for centuries. It’s also true the R2K theology is a completely different beast from historic Reformed Two Kingdom theology. This has been admitted to by no less a person then Scott’s colleague and R2K guru David Van Drunen. In an office hours interview Van Drunen admits;

“I have tried my best to make a kind of NEW Biblical-theological argument for why there needs to be a generous measure of tolerance and religious liberty and I am happy to hear back from other people who want to engage that argument seriously.”

Notice the bold print. This is another key admission. Forever, R2K has flip-flopped on the issue of whether their version of “Christianity” is the faith once and forever delivered unto the saints or something completely innovative that no Christian has ever seen before. Here, in the bold print, we have admission from one of the key architects of R2K that what he has done is completely innovative. No Christian who has ever lived as ever seen what DVD has done with R2K. I find this beyond significant.

The historic Reformed Two Kingdom was not interested in tolerance and so called religious liberty as sundry quotes on Iron Ink have demonstrated repeatedly. Here are just a couple;

“Then let us not think that this Law is a special Law for the Jews; but let us understand that God intended to deliver us a general rule, to which we must yield ourselves … Since, it is so, it is to be concluded, not only that it is lawful for all kings and magistrates, to punish heretics and such as have perverted the pure truth; but also that they be bound to do it, and that they misbehave themselves towards God, if they suffer errors to rest without redress, and employ not their whole power to shew greater zeal in their behalf than in all other things.”

John Calvin
Sermon on Deuteronomy
Sermon 87
Deuteronomy 13:5

In a treatise against pacifistic Anabaptists who maintained a doctrine of the spirituality of the Church (just like R2K) which abrogated the binding authority of the case law (just like R2K) Calvin wrote,

“They (the Anabaptists) will reply, possibly, that the civil government of the people of Israel was a figure of the spiritual kingdom of Jesus Christ and lasted only until his coming, I will admit to them that in part, it was a figure, but I deny that it was nothing more than this, and not without reason. For in itself it was a political government, which is a requirement among all people. That such is the case, it is written of the Levitical priesthood that it had to come to an end and be abolished at the coming of our Lord Jesus (Heb. 7:12ff) Where is it written that the same is true of the external order? It is true that the scepter and government were to come from the tribe of Judah and the house of David, but that the government was to cease is manifestly contrary to Scripture.”

John Calvin
Treatise against the Anabaptists and against the Libertines, pp. 78-79

“But it is questioned whether the law pertains to the kingdom of Christ, which is spiritual and distinct from all earthly dominion; and there are some men, not otherwise ill-disposed, to whom it appears that our condition under the Gospel is different from that of the ancient people under the law; not only because the kingdom of Christ is not of this world, but because Christ was unwilling that the beginnings of His kingdom should be aided by the sword. But, when human judges consecrate their work to the promotion of Christ’s kingdom, I deny that on that account its nature is changed. For, although it was Christ’s will that His Gospel should be proclaimed by His disciples in opposition to the power of the whole world, and He exposed them armed with the Word alone like sheep amongst the wolves, He did not impose on Himself an eternal law that He should never bring kings under His subjection, nor tame their violence, nor change them from being cruel persecutors into the patrons and guardians of His Church.”

John Calvin
Commentaries on the Four Last Books of Moses – p. 77.

What Clark and Van Drunen have done, in a act of linguistic deception, is emptied the previous meaning of historic Reformed Two Kingdom and have filled the words “Historic Reformed Two Kingdom” with a completely different content. There is no way in Hades that a Knox, or a Calvin would recognize Escondido’s R2K as having anything in common with their R2K project.

 Can it really be the case that Church Historian Dr. R. Scott Clark doesn’t realize that Escondido’s R2K is a altogether entity as compared with historic Reformed Two Kingdom theology? I mean, it seems to me that Scott is giving us a classic example of gaslighting. He can’t really be this dumb.