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.

McAtee Contra The Insidious & Disgusting Teaching Of Jeff Durbin

“So there will be one flock and one shepherd. One flock. One shepherd. Jews and Gentiles. Every tribe, tongue, people and nation. Every language, believing in Jesus Christ – trusting in Him and being one flock together….(1) Sometimes you have an inordinate amount of white people (in Mesa, Az.). Not that there is anything wrong with white people. I hope not(2) …. I love a church like ours when I can look out over the congregation and I can see the diversity among us, the different colors, the backgrounds, the tribes — I love it.(3) Glorify God and what God has done to bring together a body of believers with so many differences amongst us in terms of cultural differences, being raised a certain way, having a different background, a different heritage and yet here we are one body trusting in Jesus Christ.(4) What unites us is our savior. What unites us is Jesus. What unites us is the truth. One shepherd. One flock. One body.(5) …. There is an insidious, and disgusting teaching that is becoming popular now, oddly, — I don’t understand it –Reformed people talking about the way … talking about one of the ways we can save the west is by white families having more white kids.(6) If you’ve respected a man who teaches that stop listening to the podcast. Stop listening to the sermons because if you don’t understand the basic level of what unites us as Christians and what changes the world — the Gospel and God’s truth. If you don’t understand those basics you should never be listened to or respected again. Any Reformed pastor or teacher that is teaching that we save the West by white people having more white kids should shave their heads and go buy some sackcloth and ashes. That doesn’t save the world.(7) Jesus has a flock that He is shepherd over and it contains Jews and Gentiles and people from a variety of tribes and we are united because of our union with Jesus and with His Gospel and His truth.(8) What changes the world and the future has nothing to do with your skin.(9) That is a disgusting and insidious teaching that has broke its way into the Reformed community. And when you see it call it down, call it to repentance. (10) It might be easy to teach that kind of awful message, that disgraceful abominable message in a place (in a community) where most of your church is white. Try saying that in a Apologia church. Everybody would stand up and walk out…. One shepherd. One flock. One body. There is a diversity within the body of Christ that we should glory in God in.” (11)

Jeff Durbin
Baptist Minister

(1) & (5) & (7) = Durbin does not understand the passage he keeps referencing here. Here is the passage;

^{Johnn 10:16}I have other sheep that are not of this sheep fold. I must bring them also. They too will listen to my voice, and there shall be one flock and one shepherd.

Instead of me pointing out Durbin’s faulty thinking here, I’ll allow Dr. R. J. Rushdoony to explain the proper understanding of the text;

“This is a very interesting point because there is a verse that is used in St. John with respect to ecumenicism and the assertion of one worldism. In this verse, our Lord says, ‘Other sheep have I which are not of this fold,’ and he declares that them also he is calling that there may be one fold, one shepherd, it reads. Actually, it should read one flock, one shepherd. Now, what’s the difference here? The translators, by and large, have been ignorant of the meaning of the words, because they’re not sheep men. You can have a fold of sheep which is a part of a larger flock. If we are all to be one fold, then we are all to be in one church and in one world government, but if we are many folds in one flock, then our Lord is saying there are to be many groups, many peoples, many nations, but not in one fold, in one flock. In other words, our unity is in Christ, not in our organizations. Today, all attempts at unity are to make men one in organization, not in Christ, and the two are radically different.”

RJR

Lecture — The Virgin Birth and Property (Q & A section)

Pocket College

So, obviously Durbin at this point is a false under-shepherd dispensing false teaching. He is twisting the word to fit his egalitarian agenda.

We need to also say here that Jesus isn’t any less the one shepherd over His one flock if the one flock is organizationally worshiping together with all the black sheep only worshiping together, or all the Korean sheep worshiping together in a worship service, or all the Hmong worshiping together in a worship service. Would Durbin, given his hackneyed reasoning, fault Presbyteries or Churches that are organized exclusively for Koreans or for Hmong peoples? If the fact is that this happens in the Reformed world (and it does) why is it a problem if white people were to worship predominantly with other white people? What is the problem here? Even when worshiping according to a homogenous unit principle that doesn’t make Jesus any les the One Shepherd ruling over the One Flock.

(1) = Jeff insists that it has to be one flock together. Yet Reformed theologian John Frame wrote years ago to this point;

“Scripture, as I read it, does not require societies, or even churches, to be integrated racially. Jews and Gentiles were brought together by God’s grace into one body. They were expected to love one another and to accept one another as brothers in the faith. But the Jewish Christians continued to maintain a distinct culture, and house churches were not required to include members of both groups.”

John Frame,
“Racism, Sexism, Marxism”

So, there is nothing in Scripture that suggests that if the local church isn’t multicultural it is not a true Church and there is nothing in Scripture that teaches that if the local church isn’t multicultural it is somehow not as quality of a church as a multicult church.

(2) = Jeff hopes there is not anything wrong with white people, but he doesn’t seem to be absolutely sure of that.

(3) Jeff says here that he loves to see the different skin colors, backgrounds and tribes in his congregation, thus communicating that he is pleased with the ethnic diversity in his congregation. Yet, the whole overarching point the man is making is that ethnicity makes not difference in the Kingdom of God. All that matters, per Jeff, is being in Christ. So, which is it Jeff… you love the diversity in your congregation or ethnicity is irrelevant as long as everyone is united to Jesus?

(4) & (8) = Nobody denies that what unites all believers, regardless of their tribe, tongue, and nation, is being united to Christ. Nobody denies that and for Jeff to keep insisting that his imaginary opponents suggest that all believers are not united in Christ is a the weakest of strawman argumentation. All of us believe that the black Christian, the yellow Christian, the brown Christian, the red Christian, and the white Christian are all united in Christ. Further, we all believe that all of us together have one Shepherd, being part of one flock. What we don’t agree with is that our union in Christ makes our creaturely realities float away. We do not agree that grace destroys nature and that is what we hear “ministers” like Durbin saying. Just as a woman remains a woman once united with Christ so a black man remains a black man once united to Christ. These creational realities don’t go away upon conversion. Since those creational realities don’t go away it is altogether reasonable if different people groups find themselves more comfortable worshiping with people that are uniquely from their own people group, realizing that doing so does not deny our corporate union in Christ that cuts across every tribe, tongue and nation.

John Calvin agrees with me here;

“Regarding our eternal salvation, it is true that one must not distinguish between man and woman, or between king and a shepherd, or between a German and a Frenchman. Regarding policy, however, we have what St. Paul declares here; for our, Lord Jesus Christ did not come to mix up nature, or to abolish what belongs to the preservation of decency and peace among us….Regarding the kingdom of God (which is spiritual) there is no distinction or difference between man and woman, servant and master, poor and rich, great and small. Nevertheless, there does have to be some order among us, and Jesus Christ did not mean to eliminate it, as some flighty and scatterbrained dreamers [believe].”

John Calvin (Sermon on 1 Corinthians 11:2-3)

(6) = Here Durbin’s damnable Baptist commitments are leaking through. Of course Reformed people, who believe in covenant theology, would believe that having more white children could very likely be one means of rescuing the formerly Christian West. Reformed people believe that children are a blessing from the Lord and that God normatively builds His church by Christian marriages producing many children who will be ratified as in the Kingdom of God via Baptism and then who will be raised under the nurturing of their parents and the nourishment of Word and Sacrament. For Durbin to deny that one way to rescue the West is by Christian white people having more children is insidious, damnable, and disgusting Baptist teaching. Keep in mind that white people are still, percentage wise, in the majority in the West and so it is a truism that Christian white people having more children could be one means by which God might rescue the West. When Reformed clergy say that one way to rescue the West is by having more white children implied in that is the Gospel. We Reformed non-Baptist Christians don’t divorce bring out children to the Baptismal font from the message of the Gospel. I understand that Baptists like Durbin can’t understand that but when he uses words like “insidious,” and “disgusting” it gets my dander up.

(7) & (10) = What doesn’t save the world is Durbin’s Baptist theology which completely abstracts the Gospel from God’s graciousness and faithfulness as seen in the covenantal succession that is part of the essence of Reformed theology. God normatively works in family lines. Parents pass on the faith to their children as God promises to be God to us and to our children to a thousand generations. Durbin, as a Baptist, can’t really grab the essence of this and so he insists that it is only the Gospel that can save the West as if that idea isn’t anchored in the statement, by Reformed clergy, that one way to save the West is by white people having more children. All of this is why the Belgic Confession of faith teaches;

“Therefore we detest the error of the Anabaptists, who are not content with the one only baptism they have once received, and moreover condemn the baptism of the infants of believers, whom we believe ought to be baptized and sealed with the sign of the covenant,11 as the children in Israel formerly were circumcised12 upon the same promises which are made unto our children. And indeed, Christ shed His blood no less for the washing of the children of the faithful than for adult persons;13 and therefore, they ought to receive the sign and sacrament of that which Christ hath done for them; as the Lord commanded in the law, that they should be made partakers of the sacrament of Christ’s suffering and death shortly after they were born, by offering for them a lamb, which was a sacrament of Jesus Christ.”

Look, folks, ideas have consequences. One consequence of Durbin’s Baptist ideas is that somehow it is an insidious and disgusting teaching that one way to rescue the West is by white people having more children. Because of Durbin’s horrid Baptist theology he has no way to understand that statement in its best possible light.

(9) = Here we need to consider how reductionistic Durbin is. Like so many clergy today he wants to try and insist that race is only about skin color. This is a magnificently stupid statement. The fact that race is about more than skin color is seen in articles like this;

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/marrow-donors-rare-for-mixed-race-patients/

If race was only about skin color then these problems wouldn’t arise. If race was only about skin color forensic pathologists couldn’t tell you the race of a person who died in a fire who is burned to a crisp, having no skin to look at. Saying race is only about “skin color” or only about “the level of pigment” someone has is an unparalleled example of indefeasible stupidity.

(11) = Yes, we should glorify God for the diversity in the Church. But glorifying God for the diversity in the Church does not mean that the Church has to be multicultural. Even in heaven the Church will not be multicultural as we find in Revelation 21 that it is the nations as in their nations who enter into the New Jerusalem. The Church is a confederated nation that is one but as remaining many. The Church is a nation of nations. There is unity and diversity in the Church and for Durbin to suggest that anyone who disagrees with his Baptist bloviating is insidious and disgusting is just jejune to the max.

In the end Durbin, like so many of the clergy in 2025, is still living as if he is championing the Civil Rights agenda of Martin Luther King. He has no capacity to think in any terms except white people who want white people to be distinct are evil. For Jeff his is a multicult Tower of Babel Christianity where the best expression of Christianity is when all colors bleed into one.

By his position Durbin condemns the Reformed Fathers of the past who had no problem with white people worshiping with other white people;

“This is a law of our being….Members of the same nation have a feeling for each other which they have not for foreigners. Member of the same tribe or class in a community are bound together by a still closer tie.”

Charles Hodge
“The Unity of the Church”, p. 24

Shiloh Boudicea And The Morlock vs. Eloi War

H. G. Wells in his famous novel “The Time Machine” Wells gives us two classes of people. On one hand you have the Eloi species of humanity who in Well’s novel serve as a food source for the Morlocks. The Morlocks are described as bestial Troglodytes who basically farm the far weaker and benign Eloi species of humanity.

Last week in Minnesota a Morlock sought to consume an Eloi but in a narratival role reversal the Eloi fought back. Of course, I am writing of the now notorious Shiloh Hendrix. We should say at the outset that Miss Shiloh probably isn’t the poster child for resistance to Morlocks that the Eloi elite may want. The single mom, Miss Shiloh, is inked all over her arms (and odds are elsewhere) and who has never met a profanity she couldn’t wield like a sailor now is the new Boudicea for white people in the US. Boudicea, if you recall, was an ancient Brit Queen who led an uprising against occupying Roman forces.

And white Christian America is increasingly becoming occupied territory. Consider, that we never would have known about our own Boudicea dropping an N bomb on a pilfering 5 year old Morlock if a Somali Morlock had not been occupying the same playground as our Shiloh Boudicea. When I was Shiloh’s age my Dad would’ve asked; “What the fudge is a Somali Morlock doing in a Minnesota playground?” That question gets more complicated when we realize this Somali Morlock has previously been charged with sexually assaulting a 16 year old and though the court case was dropped it does make one wonder what this Somali chap with the wonderfully Morlockian like name of “Sharmake Beyle Omar” was doing at a children’s playground camera in hand.

So how is it that Somali Morlock, Sharmake Beyle Omar, was at a Minnesota playground? Well, currently the most densely populated Somali area in America is primarily in Minnesota. Morlock Sharmake is in Minnesota because the US Government, with their insane immigration policies, brought Sharmake the Morlock to the US, doubtless because “diversity is our strength.” Everyone knows that Eloi can’t be happy without Morlocks in their midst.

However, our Shiloh Boudicea decided to be an Eloi that refused to be intimidated by the local Morlock population. Doubtless, fatigued with being constantly surrounded by Morlocks, Shiloh stood her ground and the N bomb she dropped on the pilfering 5 year old Morlock she repeated repeatedly at the request of the Somali Morlock who was recording on his phone — a phone certainly acquired vua the offices of a US Government agency titled; “Elois Providing Phones For Morlocks” (Dept. of EPPM) — a cascade of further N bombs while strafing the Somali Morlock at the same time with sundry F bombs.

Now, I grew up with “women” like Shiloh and the best advice is just to avoid them like the plague. There is no other way to say it except to say Shiloh is poor white trash. Everything about the video screams that. However, to be honest, at this point it is irrelevant that our Shiloh Boudicea will never be mistaken for Betty Crocker. The Eloi, being where they are now at, were not going to be inspired by a properly raised young lady who, because of their proper rearing would never casually drop N bombs or F bombs. No, it would take someone like a Shiloh who despite her trailer trash pedigree could be transmuted into our own Shiloh Boudicea — defender of the West.

So, as the saying goes, “God delights drawing straight lines with crooked sticks” and God is using crooked Shiloh to draw the straight line of awakening the White Eloi to their danger of being totally replaced by the Morlocks among us. Perhaps Shiloh is not the hero we might want but she is our rallying point all the same. Shiloh now stands for all those White people — heritage Americans — who now realize that it really is the case that the goal is to replace them and further who have decided that they are going to resist.

It may be the case that most decent white people would teach their daughters not to use that kind of language. It may be the case that most decent white people would teach their daughters not to paint their skin in psychedelic colors. However, as I said above, all that is irrelevant when one begins to realize that the very existence of white people is what is on the table. Either the Eloi stand together on this issue or the Morlocks eat us one by one.

So, while I may not support Shiloh Boudicea’s personal lifestyle, I absolutely support that which she has now become a symbol. I support white resistance to being swallowed alive by the Bagel’s Morlocks. I support returning all Morlocks to their countries of origin so that whites have their own homeland as they did when I was a lad. I support resistance against the Morlockian New World Order that is driving the presence of Somalian Morlocks in Minnesota and elsewhere. I support a mother protecting her child, however raw that protection might be.

Having said all that I am saddened that it is a woman who is now this symbol. One could have prayed that it might have been a man who was caught bravely standing up to the Morlocks in our midst. Maybe yet there will be more men who become the symbol of this resistance to the Bagel’s Morlockian New World Order. There are men out there — good men — who have resisted in similar ways as Shiloh has but the moment clearly had not been right to draw this kind of national attention.

I have hopes that the Shiloh Boudicea event is evidence that the Saxon is learning to hate that which hates what they love.

It happened in a trailer park playground
As recorded by a Somalian ingrate
In the context of fatigue with the browned
When the Saxon learned how to hate

Look people, if we don’t wake up right now we are going to become strangers and aliens in the land that our fathers built.

Lead on Shiloh Boudicea.

Chesterton & McAtee On The Meaning Of Apparel

“All women dress to be noticed: gross and vulgar women to be grossly and vulgarly noticed, wise and modest women to be wisely and modestly noticed.”

G. K. Chesterton

It’s been a beef of mine for quite some time about the way we post-moderns dress. We are far removed from the class and the Haute couture of previous generations. It all bespeaks a coarsening of the human condition… a continuation of our disintegration downward into the void.

And now it is not enough to be ill-kempt in our dressing attire, now we seek out being ill-kempt in our own flesh with our comparatively recent fascination in the West with tattoos and body piercings.

Of course all of this is especially desultory on women as they are were created to be the fairer sex. It is one thing if one is living in a old shack to have torn and ugly furniture. It’s quite another thing if one is living in an upscale and higher end home to have it decorated like Berlin in May of 1945. God created women to be bearers of beauty as among mankind but today countless numbers of them dress like they are trying to star in a Jackson Pollack painting. One has a hard time today discerning a band of women at a shopping center from the crew of the fictional Whaler ship made famous as the “Pequod” from the novel “Moby Dick.”

I would go so far as insisting that the coarseness of our culture is perhaps best captured by the coarseness of our women-folk. Now, of course, as men are the head and creators of every culture (whether by abdication of their responsibilities to lead or by active leading askew) men are ultimately responsible for a culture populated by women covered in ink, pierced with metal, and dressed in spandex. When I was a boy, one could only see what I see daily by going to the circus or the county fair.

Look, I know that our women-folk have been led astray and so aren’t alone responsible for the ways they seek to de-beautify themselves. When living in a madhouse culture we can hardly be surprised when people begin to think that the madhouse is the norm and so follow the customs and norms of the madhouse. If a young lady sees her friends, peers, and elders looking like skin calligraphy is the hip thing one can hardly alone fault the innocent naive who have few better role models to not want to get pierced, inked, and trolloped in order to fit in with the madhouse culture.

I look at old photos of America from just two generations ago and it is like looking at another reality. Recently, I came across the photo of a major league baseball game in the late 1960s and I was amazed by the number of attendees who were wearing ties and suit jackets as well as the number of women wearing dresses. It was clear that the way they dressed then proves how coarsened we have become as a people. Another example is the way folks dress for church. Growing up we understood what “Sunday go to church clothes” meant. Nearly everyone was dressed in the best they owned. I have photos somewhere around here of me as a child with my Sunday School class with all of us 5 year olds all dressed up for church full of grins and sas.

None of this is to necessarily say people were better or more moral then. Often times dressing appropriately was a hypocrisy that was paying its coin to virtue, but people understood dressing like a vagrant was not acceptable. Even if all that finery in attire was hypocrisy, better the hypocrisy then, than the outright in your face non-hypocrisy that we have today. We could use a little hypocrisy in the way we dress.

So, our attire is just one more piece of evidence that we, as a people, are declining. What we wear, accouterments and all, screams volumes about us and screams volumes about what we think about God. There is theology being revealed in the way we dress (or don’t dress).

Doug Wilson’s Ongoing Gnosticism

“There is nothing bigoted in recognizing that certain cultures are superior to others… but they are superior only by grace & through grace.”

Doug Wilson
Pope of CREC

It’s hard to believe that this complete lack of intelligence passes for “deep thinking” by today’s clergy. Perhaps, equally as bad, is the fact that so few catch how thoroughly torpid this statement is.

First, that grace account for the superiority of one culture over another is banal because grace accounts for the superiority of anything over anything else. Whether we have been given ten talents, five talents, or two talents in any area is always only a matter of grace. God doesn’t owe any of us anything. So, Wilson’s statement is a NSS Captain Obvious statement that is right up there with the observation that “the Pope is Roman Catholic.”

Second, the person with a below average IQ would respond by noting that just as superiority of culture is all by grace so superiority of race is all by grace. As ICor. 4:7 explicitly teaches; “What do you have that you did not receive?” All blessings, talents, and abilities are gracious gifts from God. This is true of race and culture as well. Regardless of any superiorities we have — including our race and/or culture it is the truth that we are what we are by grace that keeps us from a selfish pride.

Third, to suggest (as Wilson is doing here) that one can have superiority of cultures by grace while still insisting that race has nothing to do with culture has to be the apex of Gnostic thinking. Culture doesn’t drop from the sky. According to God’s providence culture is the product of who a people are genetically as combined with what they believe about God. As peoples think in their heart so they are. Culture is driven by God’s grace in race and could not exist apart from race. To deny this is outright gnosticism.

Wilson’s attempt to divorce grace from race and race from culture are false dichotomies. If one culture can be, due to grace, superior over another culture than one race can also be, due to grace, superior to another. After all, reproduction does not exist outside of God’s divine sovereignty.

Keep in mind here that Gnosticism was the earliest and most effective heresy in Church history. It was so effective because it could often sound so much like Christianity and yet it was not Christianity.

The Racial Casting Of The Gladiator II – A Film Review (Spoiler Alert)

I am a bit of a film buff. Part of the reason for that is that film is so influential in our culture in shaping worldviews. As such, I like to view films to see what exact paganism is being communicated by writers, directors, and producers in our films.

For quite some time now a large part of my analysis of films is racial. That is I look for what race is being cast into what role and then ask “why was that racial profile cast into that particular role?” When one does that one can often see how routinely white people are being replaced in our myth telling. Also, white people often play the villain or doofus part in Hollywood films with minorities playing the hero roles who stop the bad guy white man. A classic example of this was the remake of the Magnificent 7 which found Denzel Washington playing the chief good guy minority coming to the rescue of a bunch of sheep white townspeople. Denzel Washington, in that film is joined by a bevy of 3 other minorities (A Mexican gunslinger, an Injun outcast, and a Chinaman knife specialist), along with a coward White Southerner (who finally finds his courage at the very end of the film), a White right hand man who is always picking on the Mexican minority gunslinger and a White Mountain man who is clearly portrayed as a Jesus freak who hates injuns.

Recently, a film that did not receive particularly good reviews, seemed to find a anti-Woke, pro White message. That film was “Gladiator 2.” Once again we find Denzel Washington in a key role in the film but this time Washington ends up playing a villain whose death, at the hands of the white hero of the film, ends up re-establishing the heroic White man as the head of a renewed Roman Civilization.

If one interprets “The Gladiator 2” through this racial prism it is not a wonder that it was given such bad ratings. Interpreted via a racial grid the film suggests that while minorities almost overthrow white civilization in the end they fail after white man embraces his heritage identity.

The film gives us a Rome that has white twin brother Emperors who are both obviously effeminate with one obviously sodomite. These twins are destroying white Roman civilization with their perverted excesses. At one point in the film one brother says of the other brother; “the sickness in his loins as gone to his brain.” Clearly, the message of the film to this point is that the white man has lost his way as seen in this perversion and its wicked colonizing of other nations. As the film opens Rome is attacking Numidia. A famous Numidian of the era “Juguruth” has been cast as a black man and the white Romans make the injured “Juguruth” a gladiator and kill him off in a battle in the Coliseum.

The character that Denzel Washington plays connives to murder the twin white effeminate Emperor brothers so that he might become the ruler of all of Rome. Washington’s character’s (Macrinus) murder of the white Roman emperors is particularly vicious and looks a great deal like the violence we see today by blacks against whites.

The Denzel Washington character (Macrinus) is through and through Machiavellian in his rise to power. First Macrinus outwits a stupid White Senator to get into position to get next to the effeminate Emperors and then he outwits the whole white Senate as well as the effeminate Emperors so as to be on the cusp of ruling white Rome.

Much as where the West is now, the white man in the film has become feminized and minorities look to seize the throne from the white man with his effeminate leadership.

However, hope blooms because there remain some white Romans who retain their heritage white identity. The heroes in the film are two white men and a white woman. The son of Maximus (and Grandson of Marcus Aurelius) from the first Gladiator film, (Lucius Verus Aurelius) is a man of integrity and is opposed to both the white effeminate brother Emperors and the black gladiator entrepreneur (Washington’s character) who is seeking to rule Rome. Joining Lucius in the attempt to stop the bad guy Emperors and Macrinus (the Black character) is a Roman General (Acacius) who has done the bidding of the effeminate white brother Emperors in conquering countless nations but has hated them every step of the way for how they have ruined Rome with their sexual perversion and invading of other nations.

These two men are joined by the mother of Lucius Verus Aurelias and wife of Acacius — a white woman with the character name, “Lucilla.” Like every major character in the film she hates the white effeminate Emperor brothers and she plots their overthrow. Lucilla and Acacius end up giving up their lives in order to overthrow the effeminate Emperors in hopes that Lucius will reign because of his royal bloodline. However neither know that Macrinus is about to seize power. It is left to Lucius to defeat the evil bisexual black man (Macrinus) in order for white rule to be maintained over white Rome. In the mano vs. mano final battle Lucius kills Macrinus while all of the white Roman army looks on waiting for who they will follow.

In this film the bisexual black man (Macrinus) is cast as the chief villain who is seeking to kill off white rule so that he can rule over the white empire of Rome. However, the film, while clearly showing how vile and stupid white rule in Rome has become, still suggests that minority rule can be stopped by the rise of two white men and a white woman who still retain their original white Roman heritage identity.

It is not a wonder why the ratings were so low for this film.