Just Another Slander From Just Another Batty Female

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

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

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

See interaction below;

Wendy Wilson writes,

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


Bret responds,

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

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

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

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

Wendy Wilson writes,

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


Bret responds,

Note this is just an assertion without any supporting evidence.

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

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

Windy writes,

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

Bret responds,

Yes, History teaches us that the white man, as well as other peoples, has often been terribly oppressed. See,


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

Windy writes,

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

Bret responds,

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

Windy writes,

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

Bret responds,

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

Windy, once again, demonstrates she is absolutely clueless.

Windy writes,

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

Bret responds

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

Windy writes,

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

Bret responds,

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

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


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

Windy writes,

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

Bret responds,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



In Defense of Rightly Ordered Loves

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

Burl E. Farmer

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Calvin Coolidge

And again President Coolidge offered,

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

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

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

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

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

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

McAtee Contra Mattson on Nationalism

“For my part, I will start by repudiating all of these tired old forms of “post-liberalism.” Because it will not end any differently than it did the last time.”

Dr. Brian Mattson

Substack Article

One of the “tired old forms of ‘post-liberalism’ that Mattson is rejecting is Nationalism. Indeed, the whole article is given over to why Nationalism is evil and how it alone is the reason for two world wars in the 20th century. Of course, in order to conclude that one has to ignore the Internationalism that was seeking to conquer the world in the 20th century. One has to ignore as well that a particular and unique kind of Nationalism arose in the 20th century precisely as a defensive mechanism against the Internationalism being floated by the Bolsheviks. Perhaps Mattson is right that Nationalism has killed its millions but he fails to remember that Internationalism killed its scores of millions. Mattson further fails to remember that all because a wicked Nationalism existed in the 20th century that doesn’t mean that a Biblical Nationalism can’t exist or that those who are now advocating for Nationalism in the Church community are not all members of the Franco, Mussolini, or Hitler fan club. In short Mattson’s “lessons from history” and from Bertrand Russel (of all people) are hardly balanced or well informed.

Mattson sems also to forget in his article that in Genesis 11 the agenda wasn’t Nationalism but it was International Empire and that God’s solution to Babel was on one hand to scatter the effort at Nimrod-ian Internationalism while at the same time to raise up a confederation of Tribes, through the lineage of one man (Abraham) to be a Nation that would be a light to the Gentiles. Mattson likewise seems to forget that Jesus himself sanctions nations — and by extension nationalism — when, in giving the Great Commission, He commands His Lieutenants to “Disciple the Nations.” Mattson again forgets that in the book of Revelation we find it is the Nations in their identity as Nations that are found entering into the new Jerusalem. One can easily imagine Brian saying, as he scans the Nations coming in to the New Jerusalem, “is that wicked or what?”

All this anti-Nationalism, issuing forth from Reformed-dom and Evangelicalism is a testimony to a profound misinterpretation of history as combined with a profound misinterpretation of the Scriptures. Sometimes it really seems to be the case that we are being led by the dumbest smart people the Church has ever produced.

Just exactly what is it about Liberalism that Mattson is holding on to that a theonomic Christian Nationalist order wouldn’t provide? Does he prefer the vision of the Great Reset as embraced by Klaus Schwab, Pope Francis, Yuval Noah Harari, and the Davos crowd? Does he eschew the Christian vision of Victor Orban’s Hungary because it smacks of wicked Nationalism to him? Or, as I suspect, is Mattson, like so many other of our Churchmen cognoscenti, holding on to Tolkien’s vison of Saruman? — “We’ll be a kinder and gentler Christian version of Sauron.” “Give us that Christian Orc-ian social order.”

 This is what kills me. We may be living in a time that has never seen a bigger push towards one World Internationalism and these clowns wearing  their Ph.D. degrees like extra large clown shoes are out there hanging on the cord of the clown tocsin shouting;

McAtee & Wilson Converse on Kinism — And you are Privy — Part VI

DW ends on a playful note (BLM loves to play).

In a different article, Bret McAtee complains about the Leftist press anointing me as the titular head of the Christian Nationalism movement, and argues that I am going to use my immense powers the same way that William F. Buckley did when he “cleansed” the conservative movement, first of the Birchers, followed by others like Brimelow and Sobran.

BLM writes,

Honestly, one could read this article by DW as a way to cleanse his Christian Nationalist movement of the kinists he finds so problematic. Isn’t DW saying, “Christian Nationalism, yes …. Kinism as part of Christian Nationalism NO?”

In fairness though, I don’t blame DW for that since in my world DW’s kind of civic and pluralistic “Christian” Nationalism likewise would need not apply.

DW writes,

He bases his account of this on an article by Murray Rothbard, and one wonders why McAtee is demonstrating his leftward drift so openly, citing the work of a Jew like that. A little suspicious, no?

BLM responds,

I not only have read plenty of Rothbard, I’ve also read plenty of Neil Postmen, Jaques Derrida, and Bernard Bailyn — Jews all. Does this prove I’m not an anti-Semite?  I’ve even been known to read Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John as well as St. Paul. By DW’s reckoning I’ve been suspicious for a very long time now in terms of my leftist drifting.

DW writes,

However I confess myself as not being in charge of anything that other people might want to call themselves. I am only in charge of what I am willing to call myself. And if Christian Nationalism comes to be widely associated with ethnic animosity and/or ethnic vainglory, then to Hell with Christian Nationalism, and I would rather be dead in a ditch than to call myself that. I would drop it like a hot rock. But if Christian Nationalism gets successfully defined by Christians who understand how important it is not to go down that ungodly wormhole, then I am happy to be associated with it.

Bret responds,

I quite agree that I have no desire to be widely associated with a Christian Nationalism that is guilty of ethnic animosity and/or ethnic vainglory. I agree with Doug’s sentiment “to hell with that form of Christian Nationalism.”

But, as they say, “the devil is in the details,” and I’m not confident per our exchange here that DW and I are going to define ethnic animosity and/or ethnic vainglory in the same way. In the “for whatever it is worth” category I want DW to know that I find myself repeatedly pushing back against some of the ethnic animosity and/or ethnic vainglory he is rightly concerned about. I see this in some quarters where, for example, people want to argue that National Socialism was a positive good.

DW ends with,

But time will tell. I have not yet gotten my orders from the CIA.

BLM responds,

Well, we trust that DW will be honest with us when those orders from the CIA come in.