Alienism is Kinism

Keep in mind that when Alienists wage war on Kinists they are doing it because they (the Alienists) are Kinists. The Alienists are Kinists is seen that they are championing the cause of their people (the stranger and the alien) over and above the people to which the Kinists belong to.

Alienists are Kinists and they hate the overt Kinists because Kinists do not consider their people to be the people to which the Alienists take as theirs. To use a Old Testament motif, the Alienist Kinists are the Jews whose people is everybody except the goyim Kinist Kinists.

Think about it. The Kinist impulse is to love a particular people, and inasmuch the Alienists refuse to count Kinists as their people, they likewise have the same impulse to love a particular people. The Kinist Kinists have a particular love for a particular people. The Alienist Kinist has a particular love for a particular people (everyone except the Kinist). The Kinist embraces the brotherhood of his people while affirming a very real spiritual union with all men from all tribes who are in Christ. The Alienist embraces the brotherhood of all men while excluding Kinist Kinists from any possible spiritual union in Christ. Both are expressing particular loves. The Alienist is a Kinist… just a distorted and disturbed one — one who calls evil “good,” and good, “evil.”

Alienism = Inside out Kinism.

Doc Sandlin’s Whine and Moan about Kinism

“That kinism and kinists have wormed their way into the mainstream postmodern Calvinian movement exhibits its deep defects. The Leftist accusation that conservative Christians are racist is a vicious slander. But tragically, not always.”

Doc Sandlin

When you think of Doc Sandlin think of Doc Brown in the “Back to the Future” series. You remember… the white haired guy whose hair was seeking desperately to escape his scalp, with the bug-eyed demeanor, and the irrational high pitched speech. That’s the way I think of “Doc Sandlin.”

It’s helpful to remember that back around 2003 or so, “Doc Sandlin” called the leftist singer Bono a “prophet.” This is the same Bono who crooned,

I believe in the Kingdom Come
Then all the colours will bleed into one
Bleed into one
But yes, I’m still running

You broke the bonds and you loosed the chains
Carried the cross of my shame
Of my shame
You know I believe it

But I still haven’t found
What I’m looking for
No, I still haven’t found
What I’m looking for

Yessiree Bob… now there is a Christian Prophet we can all get behind.

Sandlin also said New York Times columnist David Brooks is “a national treasure.” This was after Brooks had written that he opposed any limits on abortion, even partial birth abortions, and called for gay marriage to be legalized, a dozen years before Obergefell.

Then there was that time when Andy got on the “Reformed Catholicism” train. Yep, Doc Sandlin was going to find a way, after 5 centuries, of melding Reformed thought with Roman Catholic thought. He envisioned the world– Protestant and Roman Catholic — being covered with his Reformed Catholicism.

Oh … and did I mention the time with Andy told everybody that Arnold Schwarzenegger for Governor was the clear Postmillennial vote?

 The point here is that Sandlin is not a particularly wise men. Neither is he particularly good at reading the cultural tea leaves. Neither is he a prophet or a son of a prophet. Only restraint and a sense of propriety keeps us from listing those things that Doc Sandlin is good at.

As it relates to the quote above, just keep in mind;

1.) Kinists and kinism didn’t worm into anything. I don’t know how much reading Doc Sandlin does these days but if the man would just pick up the book “Who is My Neighbor,” by Achord and Dow, Sandlin would realize that the Reformed (indeed Christianity itself) have always been kinist. Kinism, or some variant thereof, has been the expressed belief of our Theologians, Pastors, and laymen through the centuries until the last 60 years or so when real He-Men like Doc Sandlin came along to “fix our theology.”

2.) So, if there are any worms in the “Calvinian Movement” it is the slithering, slimy, backbone-less worms that are represented by Doc Sandlin, Alistair Roberts, Doug Wilson, Rich Lusk, Steve Hemmeke, Uri Brito, and the rest of the Wormy Worms and the Worms movement. Some of these people are such worms that instead of debating ideas they would instead go all worm like and doxx a good man and chortle and dance over his experiencing cancel culture. Others of them seem to purposely misrepresent what Kinists believe or resolve to misunderstand and misinterpret Kinists at every turn.

3.) Deep defects?

You can see that Doc Sandlin, when he is not supporting Reformed Catholicism and female law enforcement officers, moonlights as a stand up comic. Maybe the man is right though. Any Kinist who would associate with a movement that has Doc Sandlin as a mouthpiece is definitely teetering on having deep defects.

4.) Postmodern Calvinian?

Only a pseudo intellectual could come up with a phrase like that.

5.) The fact that any Christian (never mind a Christian of the “Postmodern Calvinian stripe) would take the charge of “racist” or “racism” seriously is itself a laugh riot. The word means nothing today. It is just a word the left hurls at someone when they are losing the debate. The fact that Doc Sandlin even worries about being called a “racist” by the left indicates just how far left the man is himself. Calling Calvinian’s “racist” today would be like calling Reformation Calvinists in the 16th century, “disrupters of the Church.”  I mean… the only way to respond to that charge is to say, “You say that like its a bad thing.” Really folks, except for the pink poodle owner types who gives a tinker’s damn what the left thinks of us?

6.) The problem Doc Sandlin (Andy) is that it is you and your types who are fouling up our movement. GET THE HADES OUT. Start your own damn movement called the effeminate, the limp wristed, and the pansy tush Calvinette’s movement. Our movement is for the remaining sons of the West.

Just Another Slander From Just Another Batty Female

One of the joys of being McAtee Contra Mundum is that the slander and libel is constant.

Today one Wendy Wilson decided to weigh in on a Peter Jones post and revealed herself as the stereo-typical hysterical woman who “heard it from a friend, who heard it from a friend, who heard it from another some ‘facts’ about McAtee.

As I can’t refute her on Peter Jones’ post since I am unable from seeing I thought I would try to calm her down here and help her get her facts right.

See interaction below;

Wendy Wilson writes,

Yes, kinist views should not be welcome in the church and those who vocally persist in them should be driven out. What does it profit a church to have its members embroiled in discussions about the supposed “functional inequality” of people on a “racial scale”?


Bret responds,

The profit lies in counseling against unwise marriages that because they are inter-racial are by definition functionally unequal on a racial scale as demonstrated by the documented higher percentage of divorce rates as between such marriages.

Also, if Wendy had read anything she would realize that the profit in discussing functional inequality among the races is found and discussed in the book “Bowling Alone.” That finding is that where people of other races live cheek by jowl with their functional inequality the consequence is significantly higher levels of social distrust.

Functional inequality is what diversity means. Japanese are not functionally equal to Rwandans who are not functionally equal to Intuits who are not functionally equal to Europeans. Nobody — individual or ethnic group — is functionally equal to any other individual or ethnic group. Only an irrational hysterical woman could say otherwise.

So, this is area #1 wherein we find Wendy’s hysterical response to be invalid.

Wendy Wilson writes,

At best this is a distraction, at worst it sets the stage for racial animosity. Kinism is Utopian in its own warped way, imagining that voluntary segregation will usher in peace instead of hateful and divisive tribalism.


Bret responds,

Note this is just an assertion without any supporting evidence.

Secondly, Windy presupposes here that Kinism as preference for one’s people automatically means hatred for other peoples. This is a errant presupposition. Since the presupposition is errant therefore the assertion about racial animosity is errant.

We would say that a kinist social order would usher in more peace as Robert Putnam demonstrates in his book “Bowling Alone.” Where kinism prevails there the social trust increases.

Windy writes,

The past oppression of racial groups cannot be ignored. History and context matter. It borders on the obscene to bring eating habits, as you did, and hobbies/interests, as Peter did, into this discussion.

Bret responds,

Yes, History teaches us that the white man, as well as other peoples, has often been terribly oppressed. See,–research-suggests-white-slavery-was-much-more-common-than-previously-believed/

As such I realize it would be good for all peoples involved to have a social harmony that is characterized by a homogeneous social order.

Windy writes,

People in the U.S. who prefer potatoes were never forced into their own schools. People who are more into chainsaws than IT work were never forced to drink at separate fountains.

Bret responds,

Typical kind of reasoning from an irrational woman. Ironic that the reality of functional inequality goes a long way towards explaining Windy’s lament.

Windy writes,

Bret McAtee was rightfully removed from ministry in the Christian Reformed Church.

Bret responds,

Now, I know about this one for sure. I was there. I was NOT removed from the ministry from the CRC. I requested my release (perhaps the only time in denominational history someone has asked to be released who had never been ordained) and the denomination granted my release. There was no discipline. No Church courts. No defrocking and this is because I was not guilty of anything.

Windy, once again, demonstrates she is absolutely clueless.

Windy writes,

That a handful of people of other backgrounds have a attended his church doesn’t begin to justify his positions.

Bret responds

Sure it does. It demonstrates that if people of other races and backgrounds agree with me that the position can hardly be labeled as “racist.” These people do justify my position.

Windy writes,

I used to be friends with him on FB and couldn’t believe the comments he and his like-minded friends would make. I remember him saying that although he liked some of Ted Cruz’s positions, he couldn’t vote for him because he wasn’t his kin.

Bret responds,

Windy is mad at me because I follow Scripture’s requirement?

“You are not to set over yourselves a foreigner who is not one of your brothers.”


Cruz is a Canadian. Look into it. He is actually not even eligible to be President were we to follow our own laws. But then neither was Obama.

Windy writes,

He’s also a vile anti-Semite. He and some of his FB friends shared conspiracy theories about Jews plotting to control the U.S. They also smeared Jews in other ways on grounds that Jews killed Christ.

Bret responds,

I do not believe that J are plotting to control the US since it is my belief that they already control many aspects of the US. They even admit it in many of their own writings.

Wendy Wilson is just out there doing what so many are doing and that is to smear me with slander and libel.

I pray that she would discover the joys of the 9th commandment.

A Small Biblio-Theological Defense of Nations and Nationalism (Kinism)

1) Man is created in and reflects the image and likeness of God.

2.) Man is not completely man as an atomized singular individual (Gen. 1:27, 2:18). There is something lacking (Gen. 2:20f). Woman is created out of man. The first family unit together constitutes “Man.” Family is the primary building block that comprises tribe, which extended comprises nation which extended comprises ethnicity (people group), which extended comprises race. Think of outward concentric circles each larger circle related to the previous circle.

2) God consists of three persons in one essence. He is Trinitarian. God is both one and many.


a.) The One, the Three and the Many: God, Creation, and the Culture of Modernity  — Colin E. Gunton 
b.) The One and the Many — R. J. Rushdoony
c.) Assorted works of C. Van Til

3) Being created in the Imago Dei, man reflects God both individually (one) and corporately (many). Man is both Adam singularly and Adam & Eve corporately.

4) One manifestation of this idea is that while men are individuals they are also part of families. I am an individual and I am also a “McAtee,”– connected both to my nuclear family and my extended family — with all that entails for good or ill.

5) Love and right relationships are governed by God’s justice standard as enumerated in His law. As this love flows along boundaries of commandments, it makes distinctions between God and man and distinctions among men. For example, the commandment to honor one’s parents reflects the importance of the ties of kinship (also see I Tim. 5:8) and ordains that there are familial distinctions among men while also demonstrating that men have concentric circles of obligation. (see #2 above).

6) Ethnic groups are extensions of tribes–which are extensions of families. See Genesis 10, Psalm 22:28, etc. For example the Hebrews were the Ethnic group which was the extension of their 12 distinct tribes.

7) Along with creating families and nations, God judged ethnic/racial and linguistic Unitarianism at Babel (Gen. 11).

8.) God creates nations with the purpose of reflecting his glory and establishing dominion. He appoints their boundaries that “they should seek God, and perhaps feel their way toward him and find him” (Acts 17:26-27). Moreover, God wants to bless the nations (Genesis 18:18, 22:18) and God governs the nations (Psalm 22:28).

9) The nations are deceived by Babylon (Revelation 18:23 ) and Satan (Revelation 20:3,8).

10) Part of Satan’s rebellion against God is the destruction of the nations and similar to murder the destruction of nations is, therefore, an attack on the image of God.

11) Ethnic dissolution, dispossession, or genocide, which may take numerous forms, is a violation of the 6th Commandment and an attack on man as God’s Image Bearer.

12) Modern globalism–including the unfettered migration of “Image Bearers” with the intent that all peoples and colors bleed into one undifferentiable sea of humanity represents an economic, cultural, and demographic assault on modern nations and therefore on the Divine Image. It is the genocide of particularity by means of a unitarian impulse. It is monistic humanism.

13) Globalism is anti-Christ and therefore Satanic. Ethno-Nationalism produces social peace, for which we are obliged to pray (I Tim. 2:1-2).

14.) Jesus Christ himself was born with an tribal/ethnic identity. Born of the tribe of Judah (as prophesied in Genesis) Jesus remains a member of that tribe as interceding for us at the right hand of the father as the Lion of the tribe of Judah.

15.) Jesus tribal/national identity was necessary in order for Him to be who he was. All the genealogies which trace out Jesus forbears testify to the importance that Jesus belong not to humanity as a mass but rather as belonging to the House of David.

16.) In Revelation 21-22 we see the nations as nations inhabiting the New Jerusalem. We are told that the leaves of the trees are for the healing of the Nations. We are told that the nations will walk by the light of God’s glory.
We are told the Kings — who by definition are leaders of particular nations — will bring their splendor into the new Jerusalem. We are told that the glory and honor of the nations will be brought into the New Jerusalem. Nations thus exist not only presently but will continue to exist in the New Jerusalem. Our national identities will not be eclipsed. If this is true then the attempt to destroy the nations is an attempt to destroy what God has ordained to be indestructible.

17.) In Isaiah 19 we read of the promise where distinct nations will belong to God as being distinct nations. The One and the Many principle is applied there as Egypt, Assyria, and Israel are spoken of as one day being the “people of God” together but yet without losing their identity as Egypt, Assyria, and Israel.

18.) In Romans 11 with the Olive tree and broken branches, the broken branches pruned and perhaps grafted back in to the Olive tree refers not to individuals but to nations. It is the Nations as nations that are pruned out and then grafted back in (See Geerhardus Vos).

19.) In Matthew 28 the command is go to the nations in order to baptize, teach and make disciples. It is not a bunch of random atomistic individuals that are gathered into the Kingdom but Nations as nations.

20.) In the New Testament we often (though not exclusively) see Households saved as Households. Seeing individuals saved also then reminds us of the one and the many principle throughout Scripture.

21.) In the great Judgment described in the Olivet discourse (Matt. 24) it is the nations that are gathered before the Son, and then judged, and separated so as to sit at either the left hand or right hand of Christ.

22.) In OT prophecy in Micah 2 and Isaiah 4 describing the future House of God and the Lord’s reign in Zion it is the nations as nations that we find streaming to the Mountain of the Lord.

23.) St. Paul emphasizes his own nationality and love for his distinct people in Romans 9:3



In Defense of Rightly Ordered Loves

“Nationalism has much to do with identity, but that (observation) entirely misses the main point. Nationalism is really about rightly ordering and prioritizing your loves in obedience to 1Tim. 5:8. The Christian faith harmonizes beautifully with all of this, because nations, and therefore national loyalties and duties, were initially God’s idea.”

Burl E. Farmer

The abandonment of or negation of the rightly ordering and prioritizing of our loves has to call into question if the one who abandons or negates the right ordering and prioritizing of our loves can really love God. Can it be the case that someone who diminishes a proper and Biblical love for kith and kin, tribe and people, nation and race — someone who flattens out the properly ordered concentric circles of affections — really love the God of the Bible who Himself practices the right ordering and prioritizing of His love? If God does not love everyone the same — if there is hierarchy in God’s loves — then can it be sin to have properly ordered hierarchy in our loves?

Jesus had his inner circle (Peter, James, & John). John seemed to be the favorite. Jesus cared for His mother uniquely on the Cross and not for the other women gazing on. Here we find the essence of the proper ordering of our loves.

Can we just be done with this blasphemy that somehow properly ordered loves that prioritize some loves over other loves is an offense to the God of the Bible?

What else can we call this mad drive to rid ourselves of the normativity of communities that reflect racial/ethnic harmony in favor of the destruction of communities that were heretofore built on the idea of properly ordered loves which by necessity meant communities built around the blood ties of kith and kin?

We are reminded at this point of the words of Pat Buchanan;

“Did the God of the Pentateuch strengthen the people he had created when he destroyed the unity of their language and scattered them to the four corners of the earth? To hear men endlessly recite this mindless mantra, ‘Our diversity is our strength,’ when tribal, ethnic, and religious diversity is tearing nations to pieces, is to recall Orwell: Only an intellectual could make a statement like that. No ordinary man could be such a fool.”

Ethnomasochism has instantly become a competitor to “Alienism” as the sobriquet that defines those putative theonomists and cultural Marxists who insist that diversity is our strength and deny the Augustinian idea of loves properly ordered.

As we have mentioned before there seems to be some kind of conviction among the Ethnomasochistic/Alienist “Christians” that somehow love of ones own kith and kin and the desire to have a nation consistent with that love somehow automatically means the hatred of everyone else who is not kith and kin. As we have repeatedly said, nothing can be further from the truth. Kinist Christians are not calling for some kind of “one-drop rule” investigation to determine who should and should not be part of a predominately white Christian nation. The pursuit of a core people such as was pursued by our Fathers in 1924 with the Johnson-Reed act, does not mean we hate other peoples. President Coolidge got this right when he said;

“Restricted immigration is not an offensive but purely a defensive action. It is not adopted in criticism of others in the slightest degree, but solely for the purpose of protecting ourselves. We cast no aspersions on any race or creed, but we must remember that every object of our institutions of society and government will fail unless America be kept American.”

Calvin Coolidge

And again President Coolidge offered,

“There are racial considerations too grave to be brushed aside for any sentimental reasons. Biological laws tell us that certain divergent people will not mix or blend. The Nordics propagate themselves successfully. With other races, the outcome shows deterioration on both sides. Quality of mind and body suggests that observance of ethnic law is as great a necessity to a nation as immigration law.”

Doug Wilson and the other ethnomasochistic/alienist “Christians” are besides themselves over these kinds of quotes and yet this was the language of all Christians through the centuries until 1950 or so. The 650 page Anthology; “Who is My Neighbor” by Thomas Achord and Darrell Dow piles these kinds of quotes up relentlessly as coming from our Christian Fathers.

In the words of Pat Buchanan the detractors of the Kinists have a disease of the heart;

“Ethnomasochism, the taking of pleasure in the dispossession of one’s own ethnic group, is a disease of the heart…It comes out of what James Burnham called an ‘ideology of Western suicide,’ a belief system that provides a morphine drip for people who have come to accept the inevitability of their departure from history.”

If our people must depart from history let it not be said that it was the Christian church and the Christian clergy who aided and abetted and so midwifed our departure.

I would not want to be guilty of that crime on the final day.