Pope Doug Attempts To Gaslight on the Bagels… McAtee Demurs

Here we find a roundtable discussion w/ Pope Doug I of the CREC. His discussion partner is primarily Andrew Isker with a couple other guys thrown in for optics.

In this discussion Wilson is defending his unrelenting and indefatigable defense of the Bagels for which he is now becoming famous. There is no doubt that Wilson has become a bulldog for philo-Semitism.

Wilson defends the Bagels by arguing (and here I am paraphrasing);

“Well, you have to understand, that the Bagels are a high performance people and as high performance the Bagels are going to be very very bad and very very “good,” depending on which way they roll, and therefore the good Bagels cancel out all the evil Bagels so that we have a wash.” 

The problem here is that the high performance Bagel Heart Surgeons, Violinists, and Commodity traders that Wilson alludes to can never balance out the high performance Bagels who have murdered, in the 20th century alone, upwards of a 100 million people.

We can’t stop there though, we must take into account the pornography industry in the West which was predominantly created and sustained by the Bagels. Following that we have the reality of the Morgans, Rothschilds, Warburgs, and Schiffs as the Bankster class who have funded wars and stolen property. We needs mention also Hollywood which was so bad in the Jews (Bagels) corrupting the morals of Americans that they were forced into complying with a moral code (Hays code) under the threat of being bankrupted by the Roman Catholic Church in its stance against the Bagel vileness on film. That lasted until the early 1960s when the Bagel was able to throw that yoke off of them, resulting in filth upon filth being hoisted on the silver screen.

We shouldn’t slow down on this score unless we mention the Bagel Philosophers who have done so much for the West. Consider that Marx, Red Rosa Luxemburg, Marcuse, Adorno, Simone Weil, Betty Friedan, and countless others whose anti-Christ “philosophy” has destroyed the West were Bagels.

Does Pope Doug really want to suggest that the high performance Bagels on the good side of the balance cancel out all the evil of the high performance Bagels who over centuries have done their flat level best to kill as many White Christians as they can?

Does Pope Doug really want to look at Church History and tell Augustine, Chrysostom, Luther, Calvin, etc. that they each and all had it wrong when it came to the Bagels? Is Wilson really going to try and tell those lads that “Jeepers guys, if only you had understood that the Bagels were high performance for good also.”


They would laugh in his face with Luther lobbing a choice epithet in Wilson’s direction.

As the conversation continues, Rev. Andrew Isker, who does not share Pope Doug’s convictions tries to throw in a “yeah, but” every so often but it is clear (at least to me) that Isker was invited to this conversation not to strongly put forth the counter point to Wilson’s philo-semitism but rather Isker is present to serve as a whipping boy in order for Wilson to blather his inanities and false dichotomies wherein he has become a legend.

As the conversation continues Pope Doug pauses to argue that genetics has nothing necessarily to do with being Bagel. Doug says, “no, it was about being covenantally bound, and that included shared customs, culture, language, etc.”


Now, if that is true then why was it so important that Jesus be able to trace His blood lineage to both David and Abraham? If Doug is right why in the world do we have all those genealogical tables in Scripture? If Doug is right then why all the prohibitions like;

Dt. 23:3 No Ammonite or Moabite or any of their descendants may enter the assembly of the Lord, not even in the tenth generation.

If being a Hebrew was only about being covenantally bound then why these prohibitions against blood descent coming into Israel? Could not Ammonites or Moabites choose to be covenantally bound?

If Doug is right then how do we explain the actions of Ezra and Nehemiah against not only foreign wives but the covenant children of Hebrew males birthed to those foreign wives?

Clearly Doug is engaged in  his “full on gaslighting mode.” A mode that is getting more and more common for Doug and his mindless CREC clergy blatherers.

As we continue fisking this “conversation” we next hear Doug asking, “Why do Bagels draw so much hatred?”


This prompts me to respond that if Pope Doug really doesn’t know the answer to that it only tells me that the man needs to take a few courses on Church History to learn that the Bagel is hated because of the way he has treated Christians throughout history. I might recommend that Doug starts his education on the matter by reading Maurice Pinay’s “The Plot Against the Church.” If Doug wants something more current he could flip the pages of Giles Corey’s “The Sword of Christ.” It’s all there of the ongoing war of the Bagel against Christians. Failing reading those books, if Doug wants an answer to his question as to why do Bagels draw so much hatred he might want to consider;

I Thessalonians 2:14 For you, brothers and sisters, became imitators of God’s churches in Judea, which are in Christ Jesus: You suffered from your own people the same things those churches suffered from the Jews 15 who killed the Lord Jesus and the prophets and also drove us out. They displease God and are hostile to everyone 16 in their effort to keep us from speaking to the Gentiles so that they may be saved. In this way they always heap up their sins to the limit. The wrath of God has come upon them at last.

However, I suspect Doug knows all this and in the asking of his question he is merely being Doug, which is to say he has an agenda and is merely being clever. Plus, we can’t ignore the fact that Doug has himself talked about the axe he is grinding here for the Bagels;

“My affection for Israel is personal, in addition to being theological and political. My wife’s great-great-grandfather was Rabbi Cohn, one of my co-grandfathers is a Christian Jew, my kids and grandkids have cousins who are Israeli, and according to AncestryDNA, I myself am 2% European Jewish. Nancy is 11% European Jew, her mother 26%. What all this amounts to is that our family would be much more involved on an active personal level if terrorists overran Israel than we would be if terrorists overran Vermont.”

So, Pope Doug identifying as Bagel, is all the explanation we need in order to understand his massive gaslighting.

As we continue with the youtube conversation we hear Doug saying again;

“Being a Bagel did not have to be about blood.”

Perhaps it did not have to be but that it predominantly was is seen by the Bagels not saying; “May His blood be upon us and those who are covenantally bound to us?”

Instead what we hear is the Bagel self-understanding that being a Bagel was a blood relationship;  “May His blood be upon us and our children?

Also we should mention in the immediate quote above Doug himself talks about how Bagel blood flows through the veins of his wife and children. Contradict yourself much Doug?

Wilson complains about Isker’s Partial Preterist interpretation of Romans 11 and Gal. 4 since that means that the “covenant w/ Hagar” only lasted 30 years before God cut Bagels off.

In this complaint is Pope Doug somehow complaining that God was being unfair to the Bagels to only give them 30 years. Does Doug think that God wasn’t giving the Bagels a deserved break?

Not very Reformed Doug.

In the course of the interview Wilson again asks, all astonished, as to why people get up in arms about the Bagels. He notes that Jehovah Witnesses being Arians deny the deity of Christ (like the Bagels) but nobody gets whacked out about them and yet when Dougie brings up the Bagels “all the kittens and puppies come out to play.”

Honestly, this man either has no business being in the pulpit since he apparently knows zero Church history about the Bagels constant warfare against the Church and Christians or else he is being purposely clever and counting on the fact that people don’t know how the Bagels have consistently pursued and persecuted Christians. For Pete’s sake, does he not even know how many nations and people’s in history have tossed out the Bagels from their midst? Was it always all the time done because the Christian nations envied the Bagels?

We might want to keep in mind that Jehovah’s witness never murdered Christians and European peoples by the hundreds of millions or caused the collapse of innumerable nations through subversion, sexual degeneracy and usury.

Further, we ask if the Federal Reserve owned by Jehovah Witnesses (JWs)? Did Jehovah Witnesses murder the Tsar and usher in a communist revolution that enslaved half of Europe? Did JWs cause the Holodomor in the 1930s or advocate for abortion in the 1970sff? Did JWs attack the USS Liberty? Did JWs morally corrupt Germany in the 1920s and provoke a radical backlash?

You see, Wilson is just gaslighting. I refuse to believe that Pope Doug is so stupid as to not understand why all the kittens and puppies come out to play when he mentions the Bagels.

Next Doug invokes Woodrow Wilson as a Anglo-Saxon;

“Woodrow Wilson ruined the 20th century and he’s was Anglo-Saxon and what does that have to do it with it.”

Here Doug tries to suggest that Bagel ethnicity should have nothing to do with thinking about their behavior because after all, since Woodrow Wilson ruined the 20th century nobody indicts all Anglo-Saxons for that. The idea here that Wilson continues to gaslight upon, is that the Bagel blood is irrelevant to the fact of their ruinous behavior.

However, here Doug plays with US History. Very few people doubt the utter worthlessness of Woodrow Wilson as a President but lo and behold we learn that Wilson was Shabazz goy (a front man/ a puppet) worked by the Bagels;


Some historians will even tell you that the Bagels made a quid pro quo with the British during WW I. That quid pro quo was “you promise us a homeland (Balfour Declaration signed in 1917) and we will move Wilson to come into the European war on your side.”  Diverse documentary evidence shows that Zionists pushed for the U.S. to enter the war on Britain’s side as part of a deal to gain British support for their colonization of Palestine.

So, Wilson’s appeal to Woodrow Wilson fails because Wilson was a tool for the Bagels.

Pope Doug Wilson complains next that people are negatively preoccupied with the Bagels, but one has to ask, “Why is Dougie positively preoccupied with the Bagels?” We actually know the answer to that question as Doug, as seen in the quote above, makes it clear that he is defending his Kin. Seems Doug really is a Kinist at heart.

Next Wilson tries to draw some kind of equation between the nefarious behavior of the WASP establishment during the beginning of the 20th century and the BAGELS today.

To this we note;

1.) The WASP establishment was a utter failure but let us forget that the P in the WASP was leftist. It was not Christian in the least.

2.) It doesn’t take into account the burgeoning influence of the Bagels upon the WASP. See, for example, the history of the run up to the Balfour Declaration. Indeed, the fact that the FEDS were protecting Bagels can be seen as far back as Lincoln’s revocation of Gen. U. S. Grant’s general order #11.

3.) Theoretically the WASP could argue that the West was their land to destroy. The Bagel has no claim on Western lands to justify their destruction of those lands.

However, I will agree with Pope Doug that the WASP establishment by the turn of the 2oth was disastrous for the White Anglo Saxon Protestant people. However, as the WASP had surrendered Christ we should not be surprised.

Wilson’s next line of note is a real knee slapper;

“On the one hand, Wilson says, “Most Evangelicals are semi-Gnostic.”

On the other hand, he argues that genetics has nothing to do with identity. Speaking of Jews, Wilson says that being a Jew is not about genetics, but instead “was about being covenantally bound, and that included shared customs, culture, language, etc.” Speaking of ‘Gnosticism.'”

This is  a case of Gnosticism for me but not for thee.

As Pope Doug continues he insists that the reason Americans hate Bagels is because we envy Bagels.

I suppose that might be true in some cases, however, for Christians the reason we hate Bagels is because of how they have killed our ancestors, sacrificed our children for their Passovers (see Ariel Toaff’s work) and raped and pillaged our lands. Could it not be the reason that Christians want to keep Bagels at arms length is the same reason that nobody goes around trying to get intestinal parasites? If a person hates a parasite is it because they envy the parasite or is it because they’d prefer to be healthy?

Allow me to close out with a general observation. I do not blame the Bagels for the situation that the West is now in. I hold Christian responsible for abandoning and rebelling against Christ. If Christians in America has kept their first love the Bagels could have achieved no successful in roads in the business they have pursued. We are to blame and nobody else. However, part of waking up means we own our responsibility in rebelling against Christ and resolve to no longer be played the fool.


Author: jetbrane

I am a Pastor of a small Church in Mid-Michigan who delights in my family, my congregation and my calling. I am postmillennial in my eschatology. Paedo-Calvinist Covenantal in my Christianity Reformed in my Soteriology Presuppositional in my apologetics Familialist in my family theology Agrarian in my regional community social order belief Christianity creates culture and so Christendom in my national social order belief Mythic-Poetic / Grammatical Historical in my Hermeneutic Pre-modern, Medieval, & Feudal before Enlightenment, modernity, & postmodern Reconstructionist / Theonomic in my Worldview One part paleo-conservative / one part micro Libertarian in my politics Systematic and Biblical theology need one another but Systematics has pride of place Some of my favorite authors, Augustine, Turretin, Calvin, Tolkien, Chesterton, Nock, Tozer, Dabney, Bavinck, Wodehouse, Rushdoony, Bahnsen, Schaeffer, C. Van Til, H. Van Til, G. H. Clark, C. Dawson, H. Berman, R. Nash, C. G. Singer, R. Kipling, G. North, J. Edwards, S. Foote, F. Hayek, O. Guiness, J. Witte, M. Rothbard, Clyde Wilson, Mencken, Lasch, Postman, Gatto, T. Boston, Thomas Brooks, Terry Brooks, C. Hodge, J. Calhoun, Llyod-Jones, T. Sowell, A. McClaren, M. Muggeridge, C. F. H. Henry, F. Swarz, M. Henry, G. Marten, P. Schaff, T. S. Elliott, K. Van Hoozer, K. Gentry, etc. My passion is to write in such a way that the Lord Christ might be pleased. It is my hope that people will be challenged to reconsider what are considered the givens of the current culture. Your biggest help to me dear reader will be to often remind me that God is Sovereign and that all that is, is because it pleases him.

8 thoughts on “Pope Doug Attempts To Gaslight on the Bagels… McAtee Demurs”

  1. It is not quite fair to scapegoat the Jews for the entire Communist phenomenon. Communism was a “natural” evolution of the most radical principles of French Revolution (the Soviets venerated Jacobin leaders like Robespierre and Marat). And even Marxism was never purely “Jewish” doctrine, as its co-founder was Marx’s indispensable right-hand man, the German factory owner Friedrich Engels, who came from a devout Calvinist family:


    Also, the Balfour Declaration took place many months AFTER the US entry to the First World War. In that case also, it is not fair to scapegoat Jews alone for lobbying for war, as all the numerous Anglophiles and Francophiles within the American ruling class were agitating for the same purpose, and all unscrupulous statesmen in general could see that a great opportunity for building an empire was opening up for the US. Many American influencers were just itching for war, and considered Wilson all too timid. For example, one can see how gung-ho the ex-president Teddy Roosevelt was for joining the war, constantly berating Wilson as a wimp who did not have guts to fight:


    I am sort of acting as “devil’s attorney” here, but out of principle: I would not make baseless accusations against Satan himself.

  2. Well, the “Jewish genesis of the French Revolution” is genuinely just an anti-Judaic fever dream. Such a notion was invented by anti-Semites many decades after the fact, for when the revolution was actually going on, no opponent of Jacobinism ever tried to make seriously that argument – unlike in the case of Russian Revolution. At the most, conservatives like Edmund Burke made a few scoffing remarks about “Jewish stock-jobbers” being among such low elements that the revolution had allowed to rise socially, but that was about it. Some Jews participated in the uprising, but they were just small fishes.

    When abbé Barruel wrote his great anti-Jacobin opus in the late 1790s, the Jews are almost nowhere to mentioned in it (even though he talks a lot about Freemasons):


    Perhaps the only Jewish thinker whom Barruel mentions is Spinoza, and that infidel Jew indeed deserves hefty blame for playing a great part in launching the “radical Enlightenment” back in the 17th century:


    And as for the Zimmermann Telegram, one thing it clearly proved was that German leaders themselves knew, in January 1917, many months before the Balfour Declaration, that once they would start unrestricted submarine warfare the American declaration of war would be just a matter of time:


    Nothing in that article you linked to really proves that the Jews played a decisive part in pushing America into war. I understand that even Henry Ford did not dare to make THAT particular accusation against Jews, even though he accused them of ruthless profiteering once the war had started.

    (Ford had been an isolationist opponent of war, and war supporter Teddy Roosevelt trash-talked him as an unpatriotic traitor.)

    1. Yeah… it was just a coincidence that w/ the French Revolution came, within two short years of the Revolution, the fact that France became the first country in modern Europe to grant Bagels equal rights under the law.

      More later on this score.

  3. “I might recommend that Doug starts his education on the matter by reading Maurice Pinay’s “The Plot Against the Church.””

    The Jewish Question must be approached with sober and clear minds. Not with cowardly PC timidity, but not with feverish hysteria and scapegoating reflex either. (No one who realizes the full extent of Enlightenment poison would dream of blaming Jews alone, or even predominantly, for the decay of Western civilization, formerly known as “Christendom.”) And Maurice Pinay belonged to the latter category. He was the sort of cranky old-school Papist who saw Jewish conspiracies under every bed – and regarded even Reformation as just another Jewish plot:


    E. Michael Jones still represents that kind of Papist school of thought, as he makes heavy insinuations about the Jewish role in the work of Luther and Calvin.

    And that might not be the best possible kind of source of information for a Reformed minister.

    1. OK… instead of going with Pinay and E. Michael Jones, I’ll go with Luther (On the Jews and their Lies,) Calvin (A Conversation w/ a certain Jew), Chrysostom and Augustine.

      Does that fit the bill?

  4. “Disappear as a particular people” was a phrase used in the podcast.

    White Christians are on track to “disappear as a particular people”. Evangelical leadership all say it’s a good thing, we’re assisting, you’re evil to try to stop it.

    This is antithetical to the Old Testament. This is a hard rejection of Old Testament categories and it’s world view. The “disappearance of particular peoples” is an OT category/theme. Enabling it on your own people is unfathomable wickedness. The OT commands you to do everything stop this.

  5. The problem with Doug’s high-performance bit:
    >philo-Semite would be someone who only talks about the positive contributions, anti-Semite someone who only talks about negative contributions

    is that he uses it to deny the conflict of interest. You have a high-performance people with a conflict of interest. Um how’s that going to go for the other people.

    This totally disregards what the Founding Fathers knew “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people”. Libertarian civilization requires a sufficiently homogenous people especially in the higher places.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *