Refuting the Idea that Hate is Bad Form for Christians

Have to be blunt: if you harbor hatred in your heart for Muslims (please recognize the difference between the Muslim people and Islam as a religion) you are sinning. Period. Full stop. As a follower of Christ, hatred is NOT an option, and if your “theology” gives you a place for it, you have been led astray. Repent.

James White

This is magnificent claptrap. This is the kind of stuff that either brain injured people come up with, or people who have been raised as modern Christians. It is the simpering speech used by derelicts, drug addicts, or people with Ph.D’s in some kind of “theology.”

1.) No man can truly love anything without also hating that which has as its animating spirit the annihilation of that which he loves. For example, as James White loves His wife, I suspect that he would hate anybody who assaulted or even degraded the man’s wife.

2.) The idea of “hating the sin, but loving the sinner,” while communicating a wee bit of Biblical thought isn’t the whole word on the matter. After all, God’s Word explicitly tells us that “there is a time and a season for everything under the sun. A time to love and a time to hate.” Do we really believe that Solomon in Ecclesiastes was thinking while writing, “A time to love and a time to hate the sin but love the sinner?”

3.) If we are to hate the sin but love the sinner then why are we not to love the righteous works but hate the righteous?

4.) If we are to be “like our Father in Heaven,” then it would seem that we absolutely must hate the sinner as well as his sin. Throughout revelation God does indeed hate the sinner, along with and because of their sins (Lev. 20:23, Ps. 5:4-6, 11:5, Prov. 6:16-19, Hos. 9:15, Mal. 1:3, Rom. 9:13). Indeed God hates the sinner so much that He casts the sinner with their sin into hell for all eternity (Mt. 10:28).

5.) God hates His enemies so thoroughly that He;

a.) Closed the door of the Ark so His enemies would drown
b.) Showered Sodom & Gomorrah with Brimstone and fire
c.) Totally obliterated the Egyptians in plague and water

6.) Further the saints of old — our Fathers — hated sinners

a.) Joshua’s work on the Canaanites
b.) David’s work on the enemies of God
c.) Samson’s work on the Philistines
d.) Elijah’s work on the Prophets of Baal
e.) Phineas’ Javelin throwing contest
f.) Moses’ dispatching of the Egyptian overseer
g.) Jesus Christ peeled skin with a whip against the Jewish Bankers

7.) Scripture informs me to

a.) “Hate that which is evil, love that which is good.” Rm. 12:9
b.) “Hate evil, O you who love the LORD!” Psalm 97:10
c.) “Hate evil and love good; establish justice in the gate.” Amos 5:15

On the Amos 5:15 passage the Puritan commentator Matthew Poole offers;

“Slight dislikes will do little in this ease, you rulers and judges must heartily hate, and show that you hate, the evil, both ways, doings, contrivers, and abettors of the evil among the people and yourselves;”

Now, those like Dr. James White who insists that Christians are not to hate those enemies of God who hate God and His Christ will instantly run to Matthew 5:39; 

39 But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to them the other cheek also.

This passage refers to just what it says, as it only applies to some kind of petty insult coming from a personal enemy. It seems past obvious that one can’t make this walk on all fours, and yet that is what we get from any number of those reputed to be pillars in the Church. Think about it for a second. Does making this text walk on all fours make any sense at all?

” But I tell you, whoever rapes you in one bodily orifice, offer him another,”

” But I tell you, whoever bludgeons you with a pipe on one side of the skull, turn to him the other side of the skull to bludgeon.”
” But I tell you, if someone abducts one of your children, give him another child to abduct.”


“But I tell you, if someone rapes your wife, give him your daughter to rape.”

Now, all of the above does not mean that we don’t do good to those who are our personal enemies or who dish out to us petty insults. If my neighbor hates me throws paint balloons at me, I may well still bring them some hot chicken soup when they are ill and so show them a kindness. However, if that same neighbor goes after my grandchildren to harm them, they can be sure that fire and sulfur is going to rain down on them.

If you can’t find it in your heart to hate Muslims, Hindus, Jews, or Atheists as they seek to continue to bury this culture is Christ dishonoring laws and customs, you are indeed not right in the head. A lack of hate here communicates that you don’t really love Christ and His Law-Word.

One Implication of Egalitarianism

The 1st rule of Majority-Minority relations in a Egalitarian Liberal Culture

1.) The worse the behavior of a protected racial or sexual minority is the greater must be the cover up of that behavior in order to continue to preserve the egalitarian illusion. Further, this cover up will normally be pursued by the racial majority in the culture who have a vested interest in sustaining the hegemony of egalitarianism.

This rule has a necessary implication?

1a.) The more egregious any non-Western, non-White, and non-Christian behaves, the more evil the Christian Western White man must be reported to be for merely noticing and then drawing valid and rational conclusions about general truths regarding racial and/or sexual minority groups.

This means the more wicked minorities are, as against the Christian Western White man, the even more wicked the Christian Western white man must be envisioned as being so that it can be maintained that “the minorities are not any worse than the Christian Western White man.”

This is the inevitable logic of egalitarianism, for once the equality of all races and peoples is a driving presupposition, then the wickedness of any minority group must find the majority Christian Wester white group being seen as every bit as wicked if not more wicked than the wickedness of the guilty minority group.

Of course this only works in the direction of Whites as ever being seen as increasingly wicked in order to avoid any conclusion that Christian Western White behave in superior ways to any other minority group — sexual or racial.

The only way this is avoided is if, instead of the wickedness of racial or sexual minority groups being exposed, what happens is that behavior is covered up. This is what we are currently now seeing in the whole Nashville private school shooting from last summer where a sexual minority member shot up a Christian school. The manifesto of the tranny is not being released because the QGBTL minority is being protected from being seen as evil. Ask yourself this; “Do you really think that if the shooter in Buffalo had written a manifesto that it would have been buried the way the tranny’s manifesto has been buried in Nashville?”

This also explains why the FEDS are forever prating that White Supremacist groups are now the #1 terror threat in these united States. In doing this the FEDS are maintaining the illusion that White are not any better than racial or sexual minorities when the FEDS own documentation on crime screams to the contrary.

McAtee Contra Aaron Renn on “Nationalism”

People just can’t quit talking about Christian Nationalism and Kinism. Recently I read an interview piece with Andrew Sandlin and Joe Boot. Upon completing it I had to make sure I wasn’t reading a Norm MacDonald comedy routine. I may bring that to IronInk for analysis. On the other hand I can’t keep up with all the vacuous mindlessness out there on the subject of “Christian Nationalism,” and “Kinism” that needs to be critiqued.

However, in this post I am taking the time to critique another piece by Aaron Renn that can be found here;

Nationalism Isn’t American

Nobody will be surprised to learn that I find almost all that I read from the cognoscenti to be worthy only of mouse bait status. Renn is no different. See if you agree with me.

“As Georgetown professor Joshua Mitchell has shown, wokeness shot rapidly through American culture because it exploited Protestant religious themes that are embedded deep in our public consciousness, whereas Marxism never got traction because concepts like “class” don’t resonate in America. “

Aaron Renn

McAtee responds

1.) Leave it to a Georgetown Intellectual to conclude that somehow wokeness gained traction because it could exploit Protestant religious themes. I guarantee you if we looked at these Protestant themes the Georgetown professor is suggesting could be used by wokeness to worm its way into our public consciousness we would find that these putative Protestant themes are in point of fact Liberal themes that were like parasites that had attached to Protestantism. There is nothing in genuine Protestantism that makes a way for wokeness.

2.) The odd thing about this quote is Renn doesn’t seem to realize that wokeness is a form of Marxism. Hence, Marxism has resonated here but I would submit that the reason Marxism resonates is because we are no longer and have not been for quite some time a Christian people.

3.) I think the success of the Democratic party for the last 90 years or so is proof positive that the idea of “class” does indeed resonate in America.

“Whatever our challenges are today, they are certainly less serious than those of the Civil War or Great Depression.”

Aaron Renn

McAtee responds,

I think this a terrible reading of US history and our current place in that history. Now, to be sure, the War Against the Constitution, as well as the Great Depression were two very “serious” and difficult times of challenge in our country’s history but to suggest that where we are is less serious than those historical events belies a seriously tin ear as to the precipice we currently are upon. We have over 30 million illegal aliens in our country and our border is non existent. We have a debt that will never be paid off. We have two hot wars that we are arcing towards getting sucked into. The gap between the haves and have nots is greater than any time in several generations. We have an elite who are in point of fact an occupying force that clearly are not interested in representing the interests of the American people. We are setting on a racial powder keg that could explode at any moment. The Institutions of the US such as Universities, Families, and Churches are shredded in terms of supporting and maintaining a stable social order. Now, Renn would say to me, as he says in his “Nationalism” piece that this is all “apocalyptical thinking,” but naturally enough I find him playing with matches in a dark room filled with dynamite singing, “Don’t Worry, be Happy.”

The rest of Renn’s piece underscores my conviction that Renn is not very historically savvy. For example, elsewhere he can say;

“Repeatedly throughout American history, in times of crisis, our leaders have managed to take extraordinary action when necessary and to refresh our institutions to address new challenges. Lincoln did so during the Civil War. Teddy Roosevelt did so with his trust busting, as did FDR with the New Deal.”

Now, I’m not completely sure, but in my reading it looks to me that Renn is complimenting Lincoln, TR, and FDR, on how they handled great challenges. If that is what Renn is saying I’d say this is a misreading of history and doesn’t take into account the unmitigated disaster these Presidents were and how each and all of them were committed to continue to fundamentally transform the US Constitution. Lincoln was a tyrant. TR was a known progressive. FDR worked the Fascist side of the street.
If Renn thinks that current American leadership could work the magic that Lincoln, TR, and FDR, worked when they faced challenges all I can do is explain why that is stupid analysis and then pray God that current leaders don’t face our challenges the way that demonic trio faced challenges.

“What we need today, perhaps, is a modern-day FDR—a thoroughly American character who built solutions that would appeal to the people of this country.”

Aaron Renn

McAtee responds,

How can anybody take seriously anybody who would write a sentence like the one above?

Just for the record… FDR created the problems to which he offered “solutions” that only made the original problems twice as bad. Secondly, the only reason FDR “appealed” to the people of this country is because he first paid them and then set them against one another is a frenzied fit as to who was going to get first and primary access to the money he stole from the American people through his taxation policy as coupled with inflating the money supply.

“But terms like “nationalism” or “Christian nationalism” join the Left in abandoning these historic symbols in favor of ones that don’t resonate. So I believe it is a mistake to embrace this and other such language. The authentic American cultural and political tradition provides us all the resources we need to meet the challenges of today.”

Aaron Renn

McAtee responds,

Christian Nationalism doesn’t resonate? Renn says that despite the US Constitution being concerned with “securing the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity.” Does Renn know what “ourselves and our posterity means?” Is not such a phrase “Nationalism” in embryonic form?
Or what about the Naturalization Act of 1790 where the law limited naturalization to “free White person(s) … of good character”, thus excluding Native Americans, indentured servants, enslaved people, free black people, and later Asians. Is there not a foundational notion of Nationalism in such language?

As late as 1921 we could read Vice President John Calvin Coolidge writing something that sure sounds like Nationalism;

“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.”

Vice President John Calvin Coolidge
Good Housekeeping — 1921

In light of this a many many more examples that could be easily provided does Renn really want to stake out the position that “terms like “nationalism” or “Christian nationalism” join the Left in abandoning our historic symbols in favor of ones that don’t resonate.”

This is the first time I’ve take the time to analyze something written by Renn. I know he is supposed to be “all that and a bag of chips,” but this piece ranks right up there with what you’d hear in your average Owen Strachan sermon.

Renn is just terribly off in his article on Nationalism. I am coming to the conclusion that one can determine the bonafides of someone’s intellectual capacity based upon how they handle the question of Christian Nationalism. It seems to me that Renn fails just like Wilson, White, Strachan, Ainol, Boot, Sandlin, etc.

The Placing of Robert E. Lee in Hell… a Cultural Analysis

“The task of history, therefore, once the world beyond the truth has disappeared, is to establish the truth of this world.”

Karl Marx

“The march of Providence is so slow, and our desires so impatient; the work of progress is so immense and our means of aiding it so feeble; the life of humanity is so long, that of the individual so brief, that we often see only the ebb of the advancing wave and are thus discouraged. It is history that teaches us to hope.”

General Robert E. Lee


In the last week a statue of Gen. Robert E. Lee, on his horse Traveler, was melted in effigy in a fiery furnace heated, we were told to 2250 degree Fahrenheit. This was something that could have been done quite apart from fanfare and hoopla, as the enemies of Lee and what he symbolizes had already achieved victory a couple years prior with the removal of the Lee statue from the public square in Charlottesville, Virginia. However, old feuds run deep and the descendants of the victors of the War of Northern Aggression were compelled by their hatred to add insult to injury and so one of the communiques of the Marxist left (The Washington Post) felt it necessary to rub large amounts of salt in a very old wound by placing a photo of Lee burning in a hell like furnace. This was the Jacobin Left gleefully rubbing the noses of Heritage Americans in Jacobin triumph and our defeat.

My immediate thought upon seeing the photo and reading the article was, once my rage passed, “and this is what they wish they could do with all of us who find this action to be a testimony to vile Marxist revolutionary behavior. What does one expect from Marxist pigs but Marxist grunts?”

In this smelting of Lee we see once again the Marxist disciples of Marx reaching to accomplish what Marx spoke of in our lead in quote. The Left is working on the task and has been working on that task, since its inception in Genesis 3, of scrubbing away the world beyond the truth so as to establish their truth of this world. As such the melting of Lee is not merely an attack on Heritage Americans, it is also an attack on the Biblical metaphysics that gives meaning to reality in favor of a humanist epistemology wherein history and Marxist historians are given the task of “establishing ‘truth’ in this world.”

They have been at this task, hammer and tong, in regards to Gen. Lee at every turn. Consider that in 2021 the Cathedral of the Rockies finished replacing a stained-glass windowpane that the church felt was racist and non-inclusive. The offending stained glass window featured Robert E. Lee standing shoulder to shoulder with Washington and Lincoln. Lee was changed out here for the first Black female Bishop in Methodism with Boise ties. Lee was probably pleased to be finally removed from having to be in the same windowpane as Lincoln.

Also in 2021, Robert E. Lee IV, a descendent of the General, made some news ripples when he denounced his forefather by offering to whatever microphone he could find that, “We have made my ancestor an idol of white supremacy, racism and hate.” One wonders who the “we” is that RGL IV is referring to?  This same descendant of Lee was quoted in 2016 in the Washington Post, “of the shame he felt over his great-great-great-great uncle’s legacy.”

A great irony in all this is that Lee himself was relieved that slavery had ended. The man, if we are to take his own words seriously, was pleased that slavery had ended;

“I am rejoiced that slavery is abolished. I believe it will be greatly for the interests of the South. So fully am I satisfied of this, as regards Virginia especially, that I would cheerfully have lost all I have lost by the war, and have suffered all I have suffered, to have this object attained.”

However, to the Marxist gods this is irrelevant. History will be what they and their “historians” say it is, and may the truth that is beyond this world be damned.

In all this we need to keep in mind here that Robert E. Lee is not the only one who is being tossed upon the bonfires of vanity either by way of removal, destruction, or defacing. The symbols of Western Civilization and American History are everywhere being cast aside. Everyone from  Maj. Gen. Philip Schuyler — he of American War of Independence fame, U.S. Grant, to Christopher Columbus, to George Washington to Juan Ponce de Leon, to abolitionists Matthias Baldwin, and John Greenleaf Whittier. At this point it is past obvious that this is not merely an attack on the Old South but it is an attack in revolt against every semblance of civilization and order that has any whiff of Christianity in favor of the anarchy of old chaos and dark night.

Anybody who is familiar in the least with the nature of Revolution understand that once the revolutionary mindset gets rolling that eventually the Revolution eats its own. The Revolutionaries started with the statues raised to the honored confederate dead but the frenzy extends now even to 19th century abolitionists who may have been animated in their opposition to slavery due to their Christian principles.

Also lets not miss here that all the pilloried statues have one other thing in common and that reality is that all the symbols of the West being pulled down are of white people. For those with eyes to see all this statuary removal is clearly a concrete expression of the desire to rid the West of the white man, and the irony here is that a great percentage of those pulling down the statuary are white people who don’t realize that soon enough the Revolution is going also thrown them on the bonfires regardless of how many white statues they helped pull down.

Those who are aware of the way worldview warfare works understand that this current phenomenon of pillorying the statues of our heroes is in no way something new. If one looks at the era of the Reformation one finds the Reformers tearing down Roman Catholic statuary left and right. If one looks at the era of the rise of the Revolution in France or the Bolshevik Revolution one finds statues and symbols being pulled down. Even in the war against Iraq one of the streaming images instantly broadcast was of an American tank pulling down a statue of Saddam Hussein. One way a person can know that their is worldview change in the air is by seeing what we are seeing now and that is the assault on the symbols of the people who are being replaced.

This brings us to the observation of George Orwell;

“The most effective way to destroy people is to deny and obliterate their own understanding of their history.”

The attack of Gen. Lee as well as the pulling down of the symbols of the Christian West is, proximately, in the service of destroying the Christian White man and behind that is the ultimate purpose and that is the stripping from Jesus Christ the title of “King of Kings and Lord of Lords.” The Marxist mob hates Christ and because they hate Christ they hate the Christian White man who has been, in God’s providence, the carrier of Christian civilization and so the fragrance of Christ. That fragrance is deeply hated by the Left and so they cast us all in Hell by snapping a photo of Lee’s face as red hot and molten. There is very little more that these Marxists demons could do to inform us that they intend to wipe out anybody who opposes the Revolution.

In one respect this disrespect to Lee, Christianity, and Jesus Christ is a good thing. It is a good thing because it draws a bright line between the seed of the woman and the seed of the serpent. This kind of thing establishes the anti-thesis between those who are of their Father the devil and those who are on the Lord’s side.

We are approaching a crescendo on this matter. Pat Buchanan summarized this nicely a few years ago;

“In half a lifetime, many Americans have seen their God dethroned, their heroes defiled, their culture polluted, their values assaulted, their country invaded, and themselves demonized as extremists and bigots for holding on to beliefs Americans have held for generations.”

When the crescendo finally arrives you can be sure that, just as during previous historical crescendos on this count there will be blood in the street, just as there was blood in the streets in Paris in 1789, in the streets of Harper’s Ferry in 1860, in the streets of Moscow in 1918, in the streets of Budapest in 1919, in the streets of Peking in 1949 and in the streets of  Havana in 1956 Whenever these Revolutionary Christ haters are able to expand their Revolutionary mindset the blood begins to flow by the gallon.

For those with their ears close to the ground, none of this is surprising in the least. With the success of the Civil Rights movement, animated and financed as it was by the Communist International and by Marxist philosophy the hand-writing was on the wall. Then in the 1980’s when the Marxist Martin Luther King was officially placed in our pantheon of heroes it was only a matter of time till American heroes who stood for the principals exactly opposite to those of King would be pushed out of our pantheon of heroes. King is taken out of the closet and is replaced in the closet by Lee, Jackson, Washington, Jefferson, etc.

So, the Jacobin war of Northern Aggression continues apace. It never really ended and it will not end until Christianity and the white man is wiped out and incinerated in just the same way that one of the greatest Americans of our history was incinerated.

In the end this casting of Gen. Robert E. Lee into Hell was a testimony to the greatness of the man. The man was so great… such a Christian hero, that he now is, to the left, the embodiment of the Christian White man. All of the Christian virtues that the Jacobin left so deeply and viscerally hates are distilled in the great Robert E. Lee. Even after his death 153 years ago he remains the bete-noire of the Jacobin left here in these united States of America.

It is my prayer that those responsible for this desecration of Robert E. Lee… for this further cynical attack on Biblical Christianity, for this attempt to further attempt to snuff out the Lordship of Jesus Christ will result in an eternity of their seeing that red and molten image of Lee ever before them.

Sic semper tyrannis.



McAtee contra E. Michael Jones’ Description of Lutheran Theology

A Roman Catholic describes his understanding of Reformed soteriology. McAtee returns the favor.

“According to Lutheran theology, sin is not removed from the sinner through confession, penance, and a firm resolution not to sin again. Sin is ineradicable, but God in His mercy covers it with His grace as ‘snow covers shit.’ Grace does not perfect nature because nature cannot be perfected. Instead, it maintains a tension between corrupt nature and it’s redemption that Hegel would later describe with the term ‘Aufhebung,’ which is an essentially untranslatable term, meaning roughly both to exalt and maintain.”

Dr. E. Michael Jones
Hollowcaust Narrative — p. 210
Idiot Roman Catholic

Of course the flip side of this is;

“According to Roman Catholic theology, sin is removed from the sinner through confession, penance, and a firm resolution not to sin again only to find that such an arrangement is a lie since always sin comes back so that the sinner has to continue to go to confession, penance again and again and again because the Roman Catholic penitent’s resolve not to sin again is like shit that covers snow. This means that the Roman Catholic is never done with sin and that all his rigamarole is just so much play acting that has absolutely zero impact on either his sin nature or his actual sin. For the Roman Catholic sin is also ineradicable but by the legal fictions that are Rome’s sacramental system it is pretended that sin is dealt with. Grace does not perfect nature because nature is always having to return to Rome’s blasphemous sacramental system where grace is like just so much water in a leaky bathtub. Rome’s “grace” can never clean the poor supplicant because by the time the supplicant leaves the confessional booth he is more dirty than when he arrived since all that sacramental grace has leaked out of the human container.”