Category: Ethnic considerations

More Interaction With Mr. James Pelton On Christianity & Race I

 I am interacting with Pelton here because the com boxes on X don’t allow for me to respond to him given the length of his responses. I don’t pay out cash to Twitter in order to be allowed more script space. Second, I am responding here because it has become clear that no matter what I say to Mr. Pelton he is just going to come back with more extended Gnostic type reasoning that, in his mind, overturns what I’ve said.  To keep going back and forth with him yields to the law of diminishing returns. However, making our conversation public here may well help other people.

First, I really would encourage people to take a look here on Iron Ink where I have stored more than a few of the quotes from our theological fathers throughout Church history.

So Say We All … A Protest To Dr. Sproul 2.0’s Comments

What I am trying to say to Pelton is not unique to me. It has been the position of the Church in all times and in all places until about 1960 or so when the Post War and Civil Rights consensus began to take hold in the West. These two historical realities were themselves just the final flowering of the Enlightenment period, which itself find its roots back to the Renaissance and before that to the ancient pagan world and before that to the Garden of Eden.

I give the whole exchange with Pelton because I don’t want anybody accusing me of misrepresenting his view. Here they are in total.

Pelton writes,

 “Desires may involve bodily impulses—hunger, sexual attraction, adrenaline—but the decision to sin is spiritual and volitional. Jesus had a body. He experienced hunger and attraction as a man (Hebrews 4:15), but He never sinned. That proves biology is not the cause of sin.”

BLMc responds,

In the previous post I did not say that biology was the cause of sin. I said that when desires and lusts occur the reality of our biology in those desires and lusts can’t be cast aside. So, I think we agree that biology alone is not the cause of sin. However, Scripture clearly teaches that our biology is far more influential then your Gnostic type reasoning is allowing for;

Rom 7:21 I find then the principle that evil is present in me, the one who wants to do good. Rom 7:22 For I joyfully concur with the law of God in the inner man, Rom 7:23 but I see a different law in the members of my body, waging war against the law of my mind and making me a prisoner of the law of sin which is in my members. Rom 7:24 O wretched man that I am! Who will deliver me from this body of death?

1Co 9:26 Therefore I run in such a way, as not without aim; I box in such a way, as not beating the air; 1Co 9:27 but I discipline my body and make it my slave, so that, after I have preached to others, I myself will not be disqualified.

2Co 4:7a But we have this treasure in earthen vessels

In terms of our Lord Christ, the fact that He did not have a sin nature surely means something in this whole discussion. Calvin touches on this in his commentary;

“Thus he (Jesus) not only really became a man, but he also assumed all the qualities of human nature. There is, however, a limitation added, without sin; for we must ever remember this difference between Christ’s feelings or affections and ours, that his feelings were always regulated according to the strict rule of justice, while ours flow from a turbid fountain, and always partake of the nature of their source, for they are turbulent and unbridled.”

Because our biological impulses are intertwined with a sin nature Jesus didn’t have they are far more influential than you are allowing for, as seen in the Scriptures I noted above.

Pelton writes,

To say “biology influences behavior” is not to say “biology causes sin.” Influence is not determinism.

BLMc responds,

As long as we agree with the passages I posted above (Rom. 7, I Cor. 9, II Cor. 4) we can move on from this.

Pelton writes;

Yes, God created nations and families. That’s good. But sin didn’t enter through creational order—it entered through Adam’s disobedience.

Bret responds,

And Adam was part of the creational order… right?

Pelton writes,

The Bible doesn’t say we sin because we’re in this or that biological group. It says we sin because we’re in Adam (Romans 5:12–19). Saying “grace restores nature” is true— Saying “grace blesses sin-influenced nature” is false.

Bret responds,

Yes, we sin because we are in Adam but that truth doesn’t negate the idea that patterns of sin can’t run in familial lines. For an overview of this idea see,

https://biblehub.com/topical/g/generational_patterns_of_sin.htm

And I wonder, could you please point out to me where I ever said, “grace blesses sin-influenced nature?” I have no idea where from where that is coming.

James Pelton writes,

Traducianism holds that the soul is inherited, not that sin is encoded in DNA. It means we inherit a spiritual nature, not a physical mutation. Even if genetics predispose someone to a temper, the moral choice to act in anger is sin. Otherwise, you’ve collapsed moral agency into determinism—which Scripture does not allow.

BLMc responds,

There you go again… divorcing the spiritual from the corporeal. That’s Gnostic James. Since man can resist the devil knowing he will flee we know that determinism isn’t true as you falsely accuse me of. However, the genetic predisposition proves my point as Scripture does in Romans 7, I Cor. 9. and II Cor. 4 as I posted above.

James Pelton writes,

You talk about Jesus being a “supernatural exception.” But that proves my point. If sin were genetic, God would have to stop the genetics for Jesus to be sinless. Instead, Scripture teaches that Jesus shared in our humanity (Hebrews 2:14) without sin. That shows sin is not transmitted through DNA.

Bret responds,

Have you never heard of generational sins James? This primer might help you out here. Give it a read. There is much more on the subject out there. As I said, this link is only a primer. It demonstrates again, that you are Gnostic.

https://biblehub.com/topical/g/generational_patterns_of_sin.htm

You keep referring to our Lord Jesus Christ but you do realize that he was born without a sin nature right? This means that like Adam, He had no predisposition to sin. That is not true of us James, since we do have a sin nature and since that sin nature is expresses itself as Paul states above.

I think, if I am reading you right James, that you would say “yes” to the question, “Was it possible for Jesus to sin?” On the other hand I would answer that question “no” since He was predestined not to sin and since He had no sin nature. On the other hand we have a sin nature and that “law of sin is in our members.”

You see, James, I am not Gnostic like you. I understand man is spiritual and corporeal. I also understand that man’s spirituality and corporeality are intertwined and can’t be divorced like you are doing. Man’s sin nature is coded in man genetically though that sin nature is not restricted to man’s genetics. When I receive my glorified body I will be the same me but without the encoded sin in my genetics and without the sin nature. It just strikes me James that without some understanding like what I am communicating you are left with Gnosticism…. you are left isolating and divorcing the corporeal from the spiritual realities that comprise man.

James Peloton writes,

I’m not denying the body or downplaying the goodness of creation. I’m simply affirming: •Sin is spiritual and moral •Salvation is spiritual transformation •Identity in Christ transcends but doesn’t erase earthly distinctions That is classic, biblical orthodoxy—not Gnosticism. “The body is for the Lord, and the Lord for the body.” — 1 Corinthians 6:13

BLMc responds,

Yes you are. Your most certainly are. I hope I have demonstrated that above. Sin is indeed spiritual and moral but that does not mean that it isn’t biological as well.

Rom 7:23 but I see a different law in the members of my body, waging war against the law of my mind and making me a prisoner of the law of sin which is in my members. Rom 7:24 O wretched man that I am! Who will deliver me from this body of death?

Regeneration, is indeed, spiritual transformation, but that transformation doesn’t mean that we quit contending with and against sin in this life. Greed, lust, deceit, gluttony, sloth … we continue to war against these sins in this life and partly because our very real corporeality urges us in sinful directions. We await our full transformed bodies … our glorified bodies, where all these sinful bodily biological desires, as well as our sin nature, will be done. To deny what I’ve said is Gnostic James. It is a denial of our the sin that is part and parcel of our corporeality.

James Peloton writes,

I’m not dividing body and spirit. im distinguishing them, like Scripture does. Calvin also affirms that: •In Christ, we are spiritually equal •Our creational identity is not the source of sin •Grace doesn’t validate the fallen expressions of our nature, but heals them Calvin would never say different ethnic groups have lingering, God-ordained spiritual deficiencies that salvation “restores.”

BLMc responds;

Really… Calvin would never say that? Well, let’s go to the well and consider a wee bit what Calvin said on this subject;

“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)

“The inhabitants of Crete, of whom he speaks with such sharpness were undoubtedly very wicked. The Apostle, who is wont to reprove mildly those who deserved to be treated with extreme severity, would never have spoken so harshly of the Cretans, if he had not been moved by very strong reasons. What term more reproachful than these opprobrious epithets can be imagined; that they were “lazy, devoted to the belly, destitute of truth, evil beasts?” Nor are these vices charged against one or a few persons, but he condemns the whole nation.”

John Calvin (Commentary on Titus 1:12)

“Let us perceive that their are wicked nations; let us examine their vices in order to keep ourselves from (learning) them. The French, for example, are more corrupt in their attire than other nations. Why? Because they have always had the folly of having to dress the body now this way, or the neck now that way – there is no style they have not seen fit to try, and God has condemned them and had them in derision, because of this mad curiosity which they have always had. And it is more today than ever.

Thus it is true, that all the world must be completely corrupt, and everything topsy turvy now. Yet, be that as it may, we must still take note of the particular vices of the nations, so that we know how to keep ourselves from them.”  John Calvin (Sermon on I Cor. 11:11-16)

“All are not created on equal terms … This God has testified, not only in the case of single individuals; He has also given a specimen of it in the whole posterity of Abraham, to make it plain that the future condition of each nation was entirely at His disposal.”

John Calvin (Institutes Vol. 3, ch. 21, section 5)

Now, I’m sure Jame you will insist that Calvin does not say what he is clearly saying here about this subject but that is par for the course for people who don’t want the greats saying what they say because it contradicts their errant views.

I’ll leave you with one more quote from a distinguished Reformed theologian of the 20th century who wrote on this subject;

“We would maintain that all the necessary chromosomes required for the later development of the various racial strains now extant were already present in the perfect seed within the body of the unfallen Adam, even though his body and his chromosomes too must also have been adversely affected later as the result of his sin.”

Francis Nigel Lee

James Peloton writes,

That’s not Reformed theology—it’s ethnonationalism in theological garb. “The nations of those who are saved shall walk in its light…” — Revelation 21:24 That doesn’t prove ethnic traits are spiritually significant in the new creation—it shows that the diversity of the nations is redeemed to glorify God.

BLMc responds,

But ethno-nationalism (a tautology if there ever was one) is what Reformed theology teaches. Doubt me? Purchase a copy of “Who Is My Neighbor” and go to the Reformed / Presbyterian / Puritan section and see what all these chaps said in favor of ethno-nationalism. You just don’t know what you’re talking about James and you’re talking out of your hat.

If ethnic traits are not spiritually significant in the new creation then what are the nations doing there in their nations?

James, the nations are diverse precisely because they are diverse in their ethnic traits. Clearly, God delights in these diverse ethnic traits in the New Jerusalem because those traits remain as glorified.

Keep in mind James if Christianity does not teach ethno-nationalism the only option left is for it to teach either Gnosticism or some variant of Marxism, which has always pushed the same thing your pushing and that is the elimination of the ethnic distinctiveness of the nations.

James Peloton writes,

It (Revelation 21) doesn’t say “and their generational curses or weaknesses are retained and celebrated.”

BLMc responds,

I don’t know why you are repeating this canard — especially given the fact that I never said anything close to that. Clearly, as existing in the New Jerusalem the nations are glorified so that all generational curses and all sinful weaknesses removed.

James Peloton writes,

It actually more supports the point I am trying to make “Cultural Marxism” is about tearing down institutions and eliminating distinctions. I’m not doing that. I affirm God created us male and female, and made nations. But Scripture is clear: in Christ, we are one body (Eph. 2:14–16), and our old selves have died (Col. 3:3).

BLMc Responds,

Let me quote a distinguished Reformed theologian that remains alive;

“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 inthe 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”

Spiritually, we are one body but the creational distinctions remain James. This is seen even in the Church where because of the creational distinctions women are not allowed to rule over men. If they were spiritually one the way you are Gnostically trying to argue women would be allowed to rule over men. Creational distinctions remain James. Because of creational distinctions we celebrate the presence of Korean churches and Hmong churches in our midst. If creational distinctions disappeared once people are in Christ, as you suggest, then denominations would demand that these Korean, and Hmong churches be eliminated.

James Peloton writes,

That’s not Marxist—that’s gospel transformation. Ironically, saying that certain peoples carry unchangeable spiritual traits rooted in biology is much closer to Darwinian racial theory than biblical Christianity. Scripture teaches that all have sinned, all can be redeemed, and in Christ there is one new man (Eph. 2:15). Grace doesn’t reinforce fallen nature—it transforms it.

BLMc Responds,

Yeah … it is Cultural Marxism… though you can’t see it … yet.

And I don’t deny that God has people in every tribe, tongue and nation as in their tribes, tongues, and nations.

Oh… you accuse me of Darwinian racial theory. Allow me to accuse you of Boasian racial theory. Look him up. Probably one of the most influential men of the 20th century that very few have heard of.

McAtee And Pelton On The Subject Of Gnosticism

James Pelton writes,”

Sin is a moral, spiritual rebellion against God—not a biological condition.

“Each person is tempted when he is lured and enticed by his own desire.”
— James 1:14, ESV

Bret responds,

And you’re saying desire is completely unrelated to our biology? When a man lusts for a woman is there nothing about biology in that?

So when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree desirable to make one wise, she took of its fruit and ate. She also gave to her husband with her, and he ate.   Gen. 3:6

Are you saying there was no biology in those desires? Come on James … this is a sign that you are Gnostic.

You are divorcing things that cannot be divorced. They can be distinguished but not divorced.

James Pelton writes,

Can anger issues run in families? Yes—but that’s temperament or learned behavior, not guilt for sin. A quick temper might be genetic. But sinning in anger is a choice, not an inheritance.

Romans 5:12 says sin entered through Adam, and all die because all sinned—not because they got the “sin gene.”

Bret responds,

Certainly anger can be a learned behavior but it can also be a genetic trait and finally it can be both. Do you think everything is nurture holding that nature doesn’t exist? If you do that is Gnostic. Gnosticism eliminates the corporeal reality of existence and makes those realities unimportant. That’s what I see you doing by denying that creationally God has put us in particular peoples — with all their strengths and weaknesses. Those creational categories (nature) are restored (made what they were always intended to be in their best expression) by grace. Anger for example, can become resolve.

James Pelton writes,

Traducianism is the view that the soul is generated along with the body from the parents—not specially created by God at each conception. It explains how we inherit a sin nature, but not that sin is in our DNA.

Bret responds,

Was David’s lust for Bathsheba a lust that existed without cooperation from his DNA?

James Pelton writes

I would affirm:

-Sin is a spiritual problem
-We are responsible for our own sin
Genetics may influence behavior, but they don’t cause sin

Bret responds,

If genetics is influencing your behavior, then it is causal in sin. Now, of course our spiritual sin nature is moving our biological desires but one can’t say that genetics influence behavior and as the same time say it is not causal in the least.

You chaps want to make this vast divide between the spiritual and the corporeal. However, God made us as whole beings. Distinctions can be made but you chaps are divorcing the spiritual from the corporeal. That, James, is Gnostic like.

James Pelton really reaches,

Otherwise, you’d be saying Jesus would’ve inherited sin through Mary’s genetics—which Scripture and the early church reject.

Bret responds,

That would only be the case if one didn’t believe that God supernaturally worked so as Jesus did not inherit a sin nature. God, Scripture records, does the miraculous.

James Pelton writes,

When someone gets saved, they remain biologically male or female, Jew or Gentile, black or white. Your body and ethnicity don’t vanish.

But Scripture is clear that in Christ, those categories are no longer ultimate.

Bret responds,

There the Gnosticism is again.

Here is John Calvin on that subject;

“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)

Are you a flighty scatterbrained dreamer James?

James Pelton wrote,

“You have put off the old self… and have put on the new self, which is being renewed in knowledge after the image of its creator. Here there is not Greek and Jew… but Christ is all, and in all.”
— Colossians 3:9–11, ESV

This isn’t Gnosticism, this is orthodox

Bret responds,

But the new self that is being put on is consistent with who God creationally made me to be. Grace restores nature James.

You are Cultural Marxist orthodox. You are not Biblically orthodox.

Rev. 21:22 But I saw no temple in it, for the Lord God Almighty and the Lamb are its temple. 23 The city had no need of the sun or of the moon to shine [l]in it, for the [m]glory of God illuminated it. The Lamb is its light. 24 And the nations [n]of those who are saved shall walk in its light, and the kings of the earth bring their glory and honor [o]into it.

Interview With James Edwards — Political Cesspool 17 May 2025

James Edwards:  Please inform our readers about your educational background and provide some details about the church you pastor.

Pastor Bret McAtee:

My educational background is undergrad work @ Indiana Wesleyan University. When I attended there it was called “Marion College.” I graduated with a BS in Political-Science, Religion-Philosophy, and History. While there I did a great deal of work in Worldview thinking and presuppositionalism under the guidance of Dr. Glenn Martin, who was himself a worldwide leader in Worldview thinking and presuppositionalism at the time.

After that I attended Seminary in Columbia, South Carolina at Columbia Biblical Seminary. I received my M.Div there with an emphasis on Cross Cultural ministry which was a natural fit with what I had learned in undergrad in terms of Worldview thinking and presuppositionalism.

Finally, I did Ph. D. work at Whitfield Theological Seminary though I never finished that degree. However, the reading I did there likewise supported the trajectory that I had already pursued.

At each step of the way I was reading tons of theology, history, political theology, economics, comparative religions, Worldview thinking and presuppositonalism.

The Church I ministering at currently is an Independent Reformed Church.  We left connected denominationalism six years ago. I have been here 30 years. We are a small but vibrant congregation. The Church itself has existed just over 60 years. We abide by the Heidelberg Catechism, the Belgic Confession of Faith, and the Canons of Dort believing that they are accurate summaries of the basics of Scripture. We are a bit of a throwback compared to most contemporary Reformed Churches. We are decidedly Reformed in our theology. We are postmillennial in our eschatology, Christian Nationalist and familialistic in our social order understanding, we strongly emphasize the means of grace (Word & Sacrament) and we adhere to a rich covenant theology.

Edwards: The Southern Poverty Law Center, a widely criticized organization, publicly targeted you and your church a few years ago, resulting in significant media attention. Can you share your experience during that ordeal and how you responded to the attacks?

Pastor Bret McAtee:

First of all I have always found it to be hilarious that the #1 hate group in American (the SPLC) has gotten away with being known as that organization that identifies and labels extremist groups in America. It is pretty well known now that man who was the leader of that organization for years himself was tossed because of various unseemly actions on his part towards female employees and minorities as reported by various news outlets.

I would like to say that I handled the attacks with no problem but that wouldn’t be the truth. It was a very difficult time because not only was the SPLC lambasting us but also the Michigan media was splashing our name everywhere with their false and slanderous accusations. So my experience was one of despair at the time. I thought for sure that those people were going to bring myself, my family, and the families in the Church to ruin. That was definitely their intent. As a result of their libelous “reporting” I received multiple death threats. There was also slight vandalism to our church building. I also found myself denounced publicly in the local press by more than a few clergy members in the city in which I live. These clergy members were seeking to burnish their reputations by slandering me. It is interesting that not one of these local ministers ever reached out to me to ask me about the truthfulness of what was being reported. They just believed the constantly repeated errant reports from radio, television, and newspapers.

The way I responded was two fold …

1.) I refused to talk to Journalist, despite the numerous requests for interviews. Those people are never interested in the truth. They are only interested in spinning things to support the false narrative that they are seeking to weave.

2.) I took down my public online activity for a few months until the storm passed. I did that because the media had already been quoting my work completely out of context and I knew that if I left it up during the storm that they would continue with their libelous reporting where they cut and paste what one has written in such a way to make it say what one was not saying.

Edwards: Mel Gibson’s father, Hutton, once told me during an interview on my radio program that, “Tolerance is the last virtue of a depraved society. When an immoral society has blatantly and proudly violated all the commandments, it insists upon one last virtue: tolerance for its immorality. It will not tolerate condemnation of its perversions. It creates a whole new world in which only the intolerant critic of intolerable evil is evil.” What do you think?

Pastor Bret McAtee:

I think that tolerance is the battle cry for the person who uses the idea of freedom as a cover for licentiousness. So, on this point I think Hutton Gibson is correct. Freedom, or liberty, is only as good as that standard by which it is hemmed in and defined. Absolute unrestricted freedom is the kind of thing that the French Revolution era sexual pervert “the Marquis de Sade” advocated for, dreamt about, and practiced. A tolerance for absolute freedom or liberty without any guardrails to define that freedom is a illustrated by a railroad train that is free to travel without railroad tracks, or a goldfish who is free to swim without his goldfish bowl.

This reminds me of what I often say to the people I serve in the Church I pastor. I tell them that the only Taboo that is now left in the west is the Taboo against all Taboos.  That is true because of what Hutton observed about where we are at with the issue of tolerance.

Another reality that fits in here is that because of the ascendancy of tolerance we are repeatedly told over and over again that we are not to judge, and of course the reason people insist that we shouldn’t judge is because judging shows a lack of tolerance.  Yet, Jesus Himself did say;

“Do not judge according to appearance, but judge with righteous judgment.”

And elsewhere the Holy Spirit tells us;

Do you not know that the saints will judge the world? And if you are to judge the world, are you not competent to judge trivial cases? 3 Do you not know that we will judge angels? How much more the things of this life!

We see thus that Scripture does not teach this idea of tolerance as some kind of supreme virtue. Now Christianity has always taught there are areas of adiaphora — or issues regarding this or that which are indifferent or permissible that not everyone will agree on but not everything is adiaphora.

In the end when you come right down to it, the worship of tolerance is consistent with the central Satanic doctrine  of “Thelema” crafted by that most famous warlock of the 20th century, “Aleister Crowley” which explicitly teaches, “Do what thou wilt.“

 

Edwards: During the madness of the COVID era, you once again consistently demonstrated your pastoral leadership.  What was the position of your church during the height of that hysteria?

Pastor Bret McAtee:

We kept our doors open and never closed. We did try to be careful with our seating and the way we distributed the Eucharist. We decided to keep our doors open because I had a pretty good friend who is a statistics guy. It is what he does for a living. Michael was telling me and others that statistically speaking what was being reported as occurring was not statistically possible. Now, I know next to nothing about statistics but I knew that Michael was a man who could be trusted. Second, I caught a long piece by Dr. Jay Bhattacharya online. Bhattacharya, who is now head of the National Institute of Health — and who Fauci, Collins and company tried to destroy during the scamdemic — was clearly communicating that something was significantly off with what was being reported on the scamdemic. So, I combined these two pieces of information with my long established distrust of anything and everything that the Federal Government says and I along with the Elders decided to keep our doors open.

 

 

Edwards: Switching gears to a current issue, when asked by a reporter why Afrikaners are getting fast-tracked into the United States, President Trump replied, “Because they’re being killed…it’s a genocide…they happen to be white.” However, a recent NPR headline states, “The Episcopal Church will not settle white Afrikaners, citing moral opposition.” How do you respond to this issue?

Pastor Bret McAtee:

First, I would say that I don’t take the Episcopal Church to be a genuine Church. I have no doubt there are likely Christians in their fellowship but Institutionally the Church long ago left the Christian faith exchanging the truth of Christianity for the doctrines of demons.

Second, President Trump is exactly correct on this matter. What is being done to white farmers in South Africa matches the New World Order’s desire to treat all white people (especially Christians) in all the Western nations in the same fashion. Rev. R. L. Dabney said over 150 years ago that the intent of the New World Order types was to subjugate the Christian white man so there would no longer be any need for the New World Order types “to tremble before the righteous resistance of … freemen.”

Third, I think this also teaches us, what many of us knew back in the 1980s when Apartheid was an issue, and that is that the Apartheid that was practiced in South Africa (which was of a more benign variety than that which is currently practiced in Israel with the Palestinians) was a necessity in order to provide functional social order in that nation. If your readers have any doubt about this have them read Iliana Mercer’s, “Into The Cannibal’s Pot.”

Finally, the Episcopalian Church’s “moral opposition” proves a couple truths. It proves that the Episcopal Church’s morality is the morality of the Marxists. What do I care about the moral opposition of a Marxist organization? Second, it proves that what is called “replacement conspiracy” is not a conspiracy. Clearly, there is a global wide attempt to replace white people.

We should note here that this attempt to destroy white people is, in point of fact, a proxy war on the Kingship and authority of Jesus Christ. The NWO – of which many if not most Church denominations are in league with (even “conservative” denominations) – is going after white people because, historically speaking, white people have been the carriers of civilizational Christianity. Because the NWO so hates Christ, they are seeking to genocide that race which has, by God’s favor alone, been the race to build Christian civilization. Ultimately this is a religious war against Christianity and so penultimately a racial war on whites since whites have uniquely been that race to build Christian civilization across the globe.

Edwards: What is your general stance on immigration, and the alleged sins of “racism” and “xenophobia”?

Pastor Bret McAtee:

At this point in history I am completely against all immigration – legal and illegal. History teaches me that these united States were formed to be a Christian white nation.  The kind of immigration that we have taken up since the Hart-Cellar immigration act of 1965 has clearly been destructive of the nation in which I grew up. When I was a boy these united States were populated with 88% of the folks identifying as white. Today that number, is somewhere in the 61% area. The result — especially seen in our cities — is an increasing balkanization of America into tribal fiefdoms. In Michigan, for example, the Muslim Arabs basically own Dearborn and the surrounding area. In some Minnesota cities the Somalia community is overwhelming. The same is true of Lewiston – Auburn Maine. This kind of balkanization – both of race and religion – is a recipe for complete social order breakdown. I am convinced this is intended to the purpose of strengthening the position of a tyrant state. If civil unrest is a constant, the tyrant state believes that it is the only entity that can pretend to bring order. So, all this ridiculous immigration is purposeful and the purpose is ultimately to build a New World Order where nations as defined as, a particular people descended from the same ancestor, are eliminated. From a minister’s perspective that looks a great deal like a revised attempt to rebuild the wicked tower of Babel (Genesis 11). Our New World Order enemies want to build a “United States of the World.” It is just pure globalism.

As to the alleged sins of “racism” and “xenophobia,” as those words are commonly defined and tossed around today, I would say that they are not sins I find in the Scripture. The whole idea of “racism” was popularized by a Marxist (Leon Trotsky) in order to villainize the Slavs for wanting to maintain their distinct culture. The word serves the same kind of purpose today. Secondly, the phoniness of “racism” is also seen in the fact that only white people can be “racists.” If “racism” was really a thing then nobody would have a problem attaching the same label to some non-white person. I mean, it’s not like there aren’t tons of minorities who hate white people.

Racism is conveniently now defined as prejudice plus power. If that is the definition of “racism” then I don’t have any problem being a “racist.” Let me explain. I have a prejudice towards my wife, children and grandchildren. I also have the power to do for them before I do for other people’s wives, children, and grandchildren. I have power plus prejudice and I use that for the good and health of my family. Now if that makes me a “racist” then that is a good thing to be.  However, all because I prioritize my people doesn’t mean I hate everybody else. It merely means that since I am a finite being with finite resources I have to prioritize where my resources are to be used. We see this idea taught in the Bible where it says “the man who does not provide for his own household is worse than an infidel.”

In the same way my love for my family, and people doesn’t mean I am xenophobic towards the stranger and the alien. It merely means, to  quote Kipling,

The Stranger within my gates,
He may be evil or good,
But I cannot tell what powers control–
What reasons sway his mood;
Nor when the Gods of his far-off land
Shall repossess his blood.

The men of my own stock,
Bitter bad they may be,
But, at least, they hear the things I hear,
And see the things I see;
And whatever I think of them and their likes
   They think of the likes of me.

By the way, all of this is Biblical. If people want to read more on the Biblical justification for what I’ve written here on Immigration I suggest they read; James K. Hoffmeier’s; “The Immigration Crisis: Immigrants, Aliens, and the Bible.” 

Edwards: In a recent sermon, you spoke about so-called white guilt. What is it about this phenomenon that you think people should know?

Pastor Bret McAtee:,

White Americans as a people are increasingly turning away from the God who called us and blessed us. For Christians this means that increasingly as we rebel against God we are a sinful and guilty people. The only way that sin and guilt can be removed is by looking to Jesus Christ and trusting His death on the Cross as the just payment for our sin and the removal of our guilt. If we refuse to trust Jesus Christ’s death on the cross as the satisfaction in our place for our sin and guilt then that means we continue to carry that sin and guilt.

Now if we don’t bow to Jesus Christ this means that we will forever be seeking to do what only He can do and that is to seek to get rid of the sin and guilt that we know that we are riddled with. In the attempt to rid ourselves of our own sin and guilt we only have two options if we will not place our sins on Jesus Christ. We can either try to carry our sin and guilt ourselves (which is a form of masochism) or we can try to push off our sin and guilt on other people (which is a form of sadism). Now, along come the race pimps and they bombard us with the allegation that the white man is guilty of “racism.” Now, of course that is not true generally speaking, but as the white man is already guilt ridden because he has not owned Christ as his deliverer from sin and guilt he masochistically owns that false guilt pushed on him by the manipulative race pimp and tries to pay for it himself by voting for black people, or by falling all over himself apologizing for whatever it is the race pimps want to blame white folks for. If the white man would trust Christ again, there would be no ability for the race pimps to shove off on the white man all this false guilt. However, since the white man has abandoned Jesus Christ, and as such is indeed carrying true moral sin and guilt it is easy for the white man to masochistically just accept whatever false guilt is thrown his way by the race pimps and then to accept whatever solution to that false guilt that the current race pimps want to lay at their door. By accepting this false guilt, and the race pimp’s solution to false guilt the white man thinks that he can atone for his own sin instead of trusting Jesus Christ as the only means by which true sin and guilt can be removed and forgiveness discovered.

If you’re reading this and you have not trusted Jesus Christ as your alone savior then you will forever being carrying around sin and guilt and you will forever either try to pay for it yourself or you will forever try to pawn off your sin and guilt on someone else. The former leads to self-destructive behavior. The latter explains the incredible increase that we have seen in narcissistic behavior in recent years.

But for the sake of argument let us posit that the white man really is uniquely guilty and sinful as to the black man. (I don’t believe this but this is all for the sake of the argument.) Well, in the Christian world that would be solved by restitution. In the Christian world when one sins against another restitution between people is provided. However, even here the white man has no guilt because the restitution that has been provided for the black man with welfare programs, quota legislation, set asides, and other egalitarian legislation which has more than made up for any restitution that might have ever been required by Scripture.

Edwards: Many churches today are dying because they alienate men, who are the natural spiritual leaders of families.  Such churches, with their inconsistent positions on race and immigration, demand that the saving grace of Christ comes attached at the hip with feminized leadership. The famed Southern Presbyterian theologian R. L. Dabney essentially warned in his time that a reasonable person would reject such a ridiculous practice of religion out of hand, meaning the very best people would be alienated from Christianity. Does this even qualify as a gospel, when any sane person must reject the suicidal package offered by these churches?

Pastor Bret McAtee:

No… there is very little Christianity in most of our Churches in the West today. I am thankful that there remain a handful of faithful ministers but to be honest the Church is in sad shape today because the clergy is so brain dead. There is little ability to take the abstractions of the Christian faith and translate them into concrete application and action. R. L. Dabney’s book “Secular Discussions” is worth its weight in gold because of how practical that book makes the Christian faith. R. J. Rushdoony was also another chap who had the ability to show how the abstractions of the Christian faith could be translated into concrete situations. I highly recommend both authors as well as Herman Bavinck who also had this ability.

We do have a problem today with more than a few white folks giving up on the Christian faith because they have witnessed what you describe in the opening question. They look at that and say; “If that is Christianity, I want nothing to do with it.” Frankly, I can’t blame them for looking elsewhere. However, the truth is, is that much of what is currently presented as Christianity is Anti-Christ. I would have nothing to do with a church that has pastorettes or female Elders. I would have nothing to do with a church that diminishes the importance of patriarchy. I would have nothing to do with a church that pushes egalitarianism in any way. I would have nothing to do with a church that hates prioritizing love of family (Ordo Amoris) over love of the stranger and alien. I would have nothing to do with a church that is purposefully trying to push interracial marriages. I would have nothing to do with them because I don’t think they are churches, or if they are churches they are churches that belong to Antichrists.

You would not believe all the phone calls I get from around the US and around the world from people lamenting that they can’t find a church to attend because of these kinds of issues. It breaks my heart as a Pastor. It breaks my heart even more as one who loves Jesus Christ. Why should His church be in such a sad shape? Yet, God has His reasons and our orders are not to despair but our orders are to fight.

Edwards: Rev. A. W. Tozer may have put it best when he wrote, “Religion today is not transforming people; rather, it is being transformed by the people. It is not raising the moral level of society; it is descending to society’s own level and congratulating itself that it has scored a victory because society is smilingly accepting its surrender.” Can believers return to a muscular brand of Christianity that served the West well for so long?

Bret responds,

I love Tozer. I read everything he wrote when I was in my 20s. One quote I love by him is; “God raises the prophet up, and the Church mows him down.” Oh, and by the way, Tozer was a Kinist. I have the quotes to prove it.

Being optimistic in my eschatology (I am postmillennial) I do believe that believers can return to a muscular brand of Christianity that made the Christian West the greatest civilization that has ever existed in the history of mankind. On this we have to consider;
.
1.) Scripture teaches that “All those who hate Wisdom (Christ) love death.” I conclude from that, that those fighting Biblical Christianity as thus fighting for death and as death is never a proposition that can ultimately win, since dying means losing, therefore Christianity, which is the only faith upon which a non-death civilization can be built — will be restored.

2.) Scripture teaches that Christ must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet. This teaches me that a day will come, before the return of Jesus Christ in His final advent, when the all the nations will be vassal states to the current Dominion of Jesus Christ. This is why the OT Psalm 2 teaches that the Kings must kiss the Son lest they perish in the way.

3.) Further the Scripture teaches us to pray, “Thy Kingdom come, thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven.” I am persuaded that our Lord Jesus would not have taught the disciples to pray something that would never come true. Now  combine that with Jesus own statement that the gates of Hell would not prevail over an attack Church army and I know with certainty that muscular Christianity will one day be hegemonic once again. Maybe not in my lifetime but before Christ returns.

One thing we have to keep in mind is that we must not despair. Our orders are to occupy until He returns. In that line one of my favorite poems has become;

My Orders are to fight
Then if I win
Or bravely fail
What matters it?
Only God doth prevail

The Servant craveth nought
Except to serve with might
I was not told to win
Or Lose
My Orders are to fight

 

Edwards: If readers are struggling to find a faithful congregation in their community that has not surrendered to the “woke” agenda, how can they enjoy your Sunday messages, whether in person or online?

McAtee:

Well, live we meet Sunday mornings @ 10:00 am at 421 State Street, Charlotte., Michigan. We also have Worldview meetings on every other Friday evening and we teach covenant classes to the children on every other Thursday. This year is winding down but through this month we have a class on The American War of Independence and another class on Civics/US Constitution and my wife teaches a third class on herbs.

They can watch live on Sundays online at

https://ironsermons.org/

They can also access us through Sermonaudio.com and there are youtube.com sermons online.

I also run and operate both IronInk.com where I give analysis on all kinds of different issues. Finally there is Iron Rhetoric podcasts which can be found on both Spotify and Apple Podcasts.

 

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 bringing our 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.