Category: Uncategorized

Wherein we continue to look at the Dr. Mengle Abortion Referendum being floated in the state of Michigan.

(1) Every individual has a fundamental right to reproductive freedom, which entails the right to make and effectuate decisions about all matters relating to pregnancy, including but not limited to prenatal care, childbirth, postpartum care, contraception, sterilization, abortion care, miscarriage management, and infertility care. An individual’s right to reproductive freedom shall not be denied, burdened, nor infringed upon unless justified by a compelling state interest achieved by the least restrictive means. Notwithstanding the above, the state may regulate the provision of abortion care after fetal viability, provided that in no circumstance shall the state prohibit an abortion that, in the professional judgment of an attending health care professional, is medically indicated to protect the life or physical or mental health of the pregnant individual.

Bret responds,

Note that the language is sloppy — probably purposely so.

They keep using the word “individual.”

1.) If it really is the right of every individual then clearly, under this amendment, if passed, the parents of children who are twelve and thirteen who get pregnant would have no voice in whether or not their daughters are allowed to have an abortion.

For that matter, since sex is related to pregnancy what the language of this bill does is overturn all laws about statutory rape. If a 50 year old man wants to lure a 13 year old girl into a sexual relationship, under the language of this bill that is perfectly acceptable since the 13 year old girl and the 50 year old man both have;

“a fundamental right to reproductive freedom, which entails the right to make and effectuate decisions about all matters relating to pregnancy, including but not limited to prenatal care, childbirth, postpartum care, contraception, sterilization, abortion care, miscarriage management, and infertility care. An individual’s right to reproductive freedom shall not be denied, burdened, nor infringed upon…”

If an individual has a fundamental right regarding all decisions relating to pregnancy then that individual (regardless of their age or minor status) has a right to statutory rape, incest and even sterilization.

2.) Note that language above that says,

“the state may regulate the provision of abortion care after fetal viability, provided that in no circumstance shall the state prohibit an abortion that, in the professional judgment of an attending health care professional, is medically indicated…”

Health care professional?

Notice it does not say “Doctor.” A “health-care professional” is a large category. It could mean anything from a Doctor’s Physician’s Assistant to a Dentist, to a Natura-path, to a Masseur. For Pete’s sake people, this is supposed to be language amending your state constitution, not a “to do list.” In other words precision is important.

Proposal 3 offers,

(2) The state shall not discriminate in the protection or enforcement of this fundamental right.

Bret Responds,

If the state shall not discriminate we are back to the state, given this language, serving as the enforcer for abortions as potentially for children. If the State shall not discriminate this means that the state is going to enforce this reproductive “rights” for 30 year olds and 13 year olds. This language allows the State to tell Daddy and Mommy to go pound sand in their opposition to their little girl getting an abortion should the little girl want an abortion.

If this is correct then approving proposal three means that we are allowing the will of the State to trump the will of parents in cases where girls get pregnant.

Do you really want Gretchen Whitmer and Dana Nessel enforcing this right against parents?

Proposal 3 offers,

(3) The state shall not penalize, prosecute, or otherwise take adverse action against an individual based on their actual, potential, perceived, or alleged pregnancy outcomes, including but not limited to miscarriage, stillbirth, or abortion…

Bret responds,

The “included but not limited to” language allows for the scenario where a woman decides to give birth to a healthy baby, puts the newborn in a garbage sack, and dumps it in the trash — thus committing infanticide — and then leaves the scene. The language above stops any investigation since such an investigation could easily be labeled as “an adverse action” against “a perceived pregnancy outcome.”

Alternately, what if a woman decides upon the birth of her “deformed” child that she doesn’t want the child and so wants it not to live. As such the “benevolent” Kevorkian type Doctor kills the child thus committing infanticide.  The language above stops any investigation since such an investigation could easily be labeled as “an adverse action” against “a perceived pregnancy outcome.”

The language of this amendment puts the State on the side of those who commit infanticide.

Proposal 3 was written by a lunatic or worse yet someone in the pocket of Planned Parenthood. Vote NO on Proposal 3.

 

Louis-Phillipe, nephew to King Louis XVI and eventual Crown head of France himself recounts a conversation with French Revolutionary leader Georges-Jacques Danton where Danton said to Louis-Phillipe;

“Do you know who gave the order for those September massacres you inveighed against and so violently and irresponsibly? … It was I… I did not want all those Parisian youths to arrive in Champagne until they were covered in blood which for us would be a guarantee of their loyalty: I want to place a river of blood between them and the emigres… We are not asking for your approval; all we are asking for you is silence instead of making yourself the echo of our enemies and yours.”

Warren H. Carroll
The Guillotine & The Cross — p. 46

There is a principle here that needs being into broad daylight. That principle is that wicked governments have a need to corrupt their citizenry so that the citizenry can not be in a place of moral superiority so as to condemn or overthrow the government. Because of this wicked governments do what Danton did. They insure that the citizenry is as guilty or more guilty of insufferable crimes than they themselves are. As such no voice of moral clarity is allowed to be raised and if it is raised it is almost immediately shut down by both the government and the citizenry since such a voice is a reproach to both.

This explains, in part, why abortion has been pushed. A guilty population will not hold a guilty government accountable. This explains, in part, why there is such sexual license that is legal and approved. A guilty population will not hold a guilty government accountable.

Wicked governments need a wicked citizenry in order to maintain power. As such wicked governments will always push a behavioral morality that will but the citizenry in the bondage of sin. People in bondage to sin will not be a people who sue for civil liberty.

One of the sticking points between Doug Wilson and I is the definition of what constitutes ethnic animosity and/or ethnic vainglory. We both agree that ethnic animosity and/or ethnic vainglory is not Christian but as to how to define that, well, the devil is in the details isn’t it?

Before we work on a definition on my end, I have to note that raising the warning to whites of the dangers of ethnic animosity and/or ethnic vainglory, in this cultural moment is, in my estimation, akin to one of Noah’s sons on the ark going bat-snit crazy warning about a coming drought while the rains fell down and the floods came up. “Umm… thanks for the warning son, but for right now could you please just cover that leak in the ark with some pitch?”

We all know of some of the more sensational cases where minority crime on whites is exposed. Eliza Fletcher’s recent kidnapping, rape, and murder is merely the most recent case. Another horror case was that of Channon Gail Christian, aged 21, and Hugh Christopher Newsom Jr., aged 23 in Knoxville, Tennessee. What we may well not know is how common place these kinds of crime are. This booklet pulls back the curtain and forces us to ask Doug Wilson what people group he should be raising a warning to in terms of ethnic animosity and ethnic vainglory.

Click to access 2005-Color-of-Crime-Report.pdf

There are whole books dedicated to this ethnic animosity towards white phenomenon. Colin Flaherty’s “White Girl Bleed A Lot,” and “Don’t Make the Black Kids Angry,” chronicles ethnic animosity by blacks against whites. We also have the whole recent uprising of “Black Lives Matter.” Yet DW suggests that it is the ethnic animosity/vainglory of white kinists who DW needs to warn the world about?

One wonders if DW would call it ethnic vainglory or animosity if the white kinists brought to the attention of people what Jesse Jackson said a few years ago;

“There is nothing more painful to me at this stage in my life than to walk down the street and hear footsteps… then turn around and see somebody white and feel relieved.”

Per the United Nations definition of genocide it is white people who are being genocided. Genocide is defined in Article 2 of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (1948) as,

“any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such: killing members of the group (see “Color of Crime” stats); causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group (government school attendance); deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part1 (current Immigration crisis) ; imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; [and] forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.”

And yet what we get from DW lecturing white Christians is, “no ethnic animosity/vainglory please.” This is like lecturing Custer at the Little Big Horn to“take it easy on the Sioux please.”I mean, “yes, of course, ethnic animosity is sinful and to practice it is sin, however how about some warnings against suicidal altruism Doug?” That would seem more appropriate to the season.

If I could I would ask DW; if he counts it racial animosity/vainglory for  men, for example, to engage in the natural tendency to associate with those of their own race and culture? Is it racial animosity/vainglory to prefer the company of one’s own people?

As to what exactly defines ethnic animosity/ vainglory perhaps we might consider the wisdom of the past on what it is not. I mean DW is always reminding us (following Chesterton) not to tear down a boundary marker before we first know why it was put up to begin with. There has been boundary markers in the past of what does and does not constitute ethnic animosity/vainglory.

“If the Mosaic code, so far as it is adapted to our country, age, and religion, were followed; one half of the miseries of society and the whole of the blunders of politicians would be averted. Under this code, the love of the Hebrew was first to be expended in the bosom of his own family, next upon his own tribe, and finally, upon his nation. Marriages were strictly forbidden with other nations, and to some extent interdicted with other tribes. The Hebrew woman marrying in another tribe forfeited her inheritance. Marriages of that kind were rare. Each tribe was desirous to excel in numbers, as well as in the arts of war and peace. So it became a reproach to be barren.

The whole Mosaic economy fostered and promoted sectional love and sectional pride. It had none of the hypocritical cant of modern philanthropy about “the great heart of humanity” and “knowing no North, no South, no East, no West.” — [see Melville’s Redburn]. On the contrary, it taught most distinctly that the boundaries of each tribe must be recognized, and that the duty and the love of each Hebrew belonged specially to his own tribe.”

W.L. Faison 
‘The Land We Love’, Vol. 2 — p. 366.

“Every sinner, as he is a sinner, is to be hated; every man, as he is a man, is to be loved. Let us love men so that we love not their sins; and love them for that which God made them, not that which by sin they made themselves. For degrees, one man is nearer than another. It is certain there are degrees; for to omit our duties towards our parents is worse than to omit the same duties towards a stranger. The order of our love must be thus: to God, to our own souls, to the souls of our brethren before our own bodies, to our own bodies before other men’s, to the bodies of our neighbors.

[Of the bodies of our neighbors there are also degrees to be followed]: first, to them that have need; and of those, first to the household of faith (Gal. 6:10); and of them, first to our countrymen, brethren and companions (Ps. 122:8); and of these, first them that are our friends and acquaintances; and of them, first to them of our own household and kindred (1 Tim. 5:8); and of our kindred, first the wife (Gen. 2:24, 1 Sam. 1:8).

Of the manner of our love: ‘not so much as thyself, but after the same manner.’ Because thou lovest God, (and therefore all things which are God’s), for this cause love thy brother. pp. 172-3. The rule is that the love to myself must be the rule of the love to my neighbor, and so it is not required that I should do any more for my neighbor than I would do for myself.” p. 209.

Lancelot Andrewes
Chair of the KJV Translation work
‘Pattern of Catechistical Doctrine and Other Minor Works’

We all need to remember a foundational tactic of the Marxists here on this subject. The Marxists discredit something wholesome and natural by inextricably linking it to something sinful. So, if you like to socialize with other whites, its because you hate minorities. If you prefer to provide for your own family, it reveals that you hate immigrants, or “image bearers.” If you prefer that this country be primarily for people of the West it reveals that you are just stuffed to the gills with racial animosity. And if you commit the sin of noticing racial/ethnic patterns — even in the context of raising a sound and necessary warning — you are guilty of committing the sin of racial animosity/vainglory.

If I have to choose between being wrongly charged with racial animosity/vainglory or being rightly charged with attempting to avoid genocide, “I’ll take two of the latter in a to go bag please.”

 

https://www.pactuminstitute.com/press-statements/doug-wilson-the-pactum-institute-and-ethnic-complementarianism

Doug Wilson is a Boomer Fraud

Doug Wilson writes,

Rejecting Malevolence

McAtee begins his piece by quoting my book.

“The thing that requires me to identify kinists as racists (and as much in defiance of the Scriptures as any they oppose) is the overt malevolence they routinely show toward the image and work of God Himself. To mock folly and sin is a prophetic duty. To mock the color of a man’s skin is to defy the handiwork of God.“

Douglas Wilson, Skin and Blood

And he also quotes me as saying this . . .

“Racial malice and racial vainglory are sins against God, not because they take the obvious factors of race into account as they interpret the world, but because they are malicious and vainglorious.”

Douglas Wilson, Skin and Blood

First, notice my use of “racial” and “race” in that quote, which is how I used to speak of these things. Back in the old days before I was wise.

BLM responds

1.) Well, as the younger and less wise Doug is just now having this book come out from the older and more wise Doug, I might suggest that he “stop the presses” so his older and more wiser self can make the changes before the hot off the presses book is released.

DW writes,

So let me begin our interaction with something McAtee does grant at the beginning, and which I am very glad to see—as far as it goes.

“Allow me to admit that there have been times when I have seen black people being mocked by white Kinists simply because they are black. I do agree when this happens this is a bridge too far . . . I will grant that it is still sin to mock the color of a man’s skin if Wilson will grant that a majority of people with pigmented skin have been co-opted to genocide White Christians and to roll Jesus Christ off His throne.”

Bret McAtee

First, while I don’t want to quibble, it seems to me that a confession that mean-spiritedness is wrong ought not to be dependent on anybody else admitting to something else. That’s not how this works. But as far as the point he wants me to grant goes, I do grant it. But something more needs to be said, and it is really important.

BLM responds,

1.) The reader needs to go back and read the ellipsis that Wilson omits in order to get a better understanding of my comment to which DW objects.

2.) As long as people go back and look at that ellipsis to see the context I am happy to grant this to Rev Wilson. Certainly, though DW does not really think that my  admitting to some mean-spiritedness happening in the Kinist camp is first dependent on him admitting to something else? My mistake above was in using the word “if” as opposed to using a word like “expecting.”  Thank you Doug for pointing this out. It was a proper correction.

DW writes quoting me,

“I do think though that the Rev. Wilson might want to take into some considerations that there currently is an ongoing attempt to genocide white people, or at the very least turn them into hewers of wood and drawers of water (slaves) . . . Does Wilson need to be reminded that it is minorities along with other constituencies who are have been captured by the cultural Marxists . . .”

Bret McAtee

No, I don’t need to be reminded of anything like that. I am in a pitched battle with the commies, and I don’t much care what color the commies are. Here we are, defending our cultural Helm’s Deep, and the next wave of orcs comes swarming up the walls. And then suddenly, down our rampart a little bit, I hear the cry raised by the kinists. “Just shoot at the darker ones!” I would suggest mildly, and with just a hint of exasperation, that somebody doesn’t understand what the hell is going on.

BLM responds,

1.) DW bangs this drum a little too long and a little too loud. If you look at the Kinists writings (Iron Ink, Tribal Theocrat, Faith & Heritage) there is just scads of evidence of arrows skewering the chest of plenty of Caucasian orcs from the Kinist bows. I admit that the claim, from a literary standpoint is colorful and genius, but I deny that it is rooted in reality.

2.) For the sake of argument though, even were it true (and it most certainly is not true) were the Kinist “just shooting the darker orcs” it would still mean that Helm’s deep had fewer enemies assaulting the gates than it had before those kinist arrows were unleashed. And that would be a good thing right Doug?

Still, having said that I agree with you. Christendom is dead whether we are slain by white orcs or by non-white orcs and so they must all be put down.

And here I suppose, just to be safe, I should add that we are talking in metaphors here. I am not a bowman by trade and I have no intent to unleash real live arrows on anybody any time soon.

3.) Still, if DW would be exasperated, exclaiming that “somebody doesn’t understand what the hell is going on,” allow me to suggest that has been the mindset of the Kinists for well over a decade now. Rome is burning and all we get from the CREC normies and Murican Bears is that the Kinists are the Hell-bound enemy, when all we are doing is trying to defend Helm’s deep from all comers. Does the fact that you don’t believe in race and we do believe in race mean that we can’t at least play the role of the Ents to your role of the Riders of Rohan defending Helm’s Deep? Must we be shooting each other in the defense of what little is left of Christian civilization?

DW writes,

Various minorities, pigmented and otherwise, have in fact been co-opted by forces of great evil in the world. That is true. But their program is not really genocidal. What is the color of the co-opters? It would be better to describe all this as suicidal.

“But he that sinneth against me wrongeth his own soul: All they that hate me love death.”

Proverbs 8:36 (KJV)

BLM responds,

Again, I have repeatedly written that the co-opters are a problem. I have also repeatedly written that the co-opters of the co-opters are even a bigger problem. And, I would still disagree that this is not genocidal and religio-cidal. The enemy is out to especially genocide the Christian white man and religio-cide the Biblical Christianity of all men. If someone is both white and Christian they live with a larger target on their back. If someone is both non-white and a Biblical Christian they are lonely beyond words. The new proletariat being used (co-opted) to “March through the institutions” are a large percentile of minorities, all perverts, feminists, and many academics. You’ll notice it is not White South African Christians that they are letting come across the borders by the millions.

DW writes,

When the body of whiteness is found, and the gun lying beside that carcass still warm, it will not be to the point to say that the gun hated whiteness. The gun was the instrument, but it was whiteness itself that pulled the trigger. Aggrieved minorities (ethnic, sexual, hearing-impaired, and Vietnam-era vets) are being used as the instrument, sure enough. So?

BLM responds,

Here we find a significant disagreement. Whiteness pulled the trigger or “Whiteness” is pulling the trigger?

And here we find, once again, Doug going all racial. Why is it when DW makes a mistake on the matter of race it seems always to be in the context of how evil the white man is? “Whiteness pulled the trigger?”

And the answer to the “so” question is. “it’s always good to know who your enemy is.”

DW writes

I grant that “whiteness” has been made a central target, and that extermination of Western civilization, that is to say, a generically Christian civilization, is the goal. Much of the besieged city is not truly Christian anymore, but these people hate God so much they don’t want anything that even reminds them of something that used to be Christian.

BLM responds,

No, it is not a generically Christian civilization that the enemy is going after Doug. It is a particularly white Christian civilization that they are going after.

I thoroughly agree with DW’s second sentence above.

DW writes,

But who co-opted these minorities in the first place? Who enlisted them to do this awful thing? Who is using them as a cat’s paw? White people, that’s who. Woodrow Wilson was white. FDR was white. LBJ was white. Earl Warren was white. Margaret Sanger was white. King Charles III is white. Out of the six justices who voted for Roe, only one was black. Elizabeth Warren is white. Ted Kennedy was white. Nelson Rockefeller was white. John Roberts is white. Jimmy Carter is white. Nancy Pelosi is white. Hillary Clinton is white, ditto Bill. John Dewey was white. Richard Rorty is white. Keith Olbermann is white. The overwhelming number of Ivy League grads are white. Shall I go on?

BLM responds,

White people are guilty Doug? But I didn’t think whiteness existed? But maybe I should re-translate this to mean people of European ancestry are guilty?

1.) Now this “who” question brings us to another flash point but instead of quoting from Martin Luther or John Calvin, or Peter Hammond or Maurice Pinay, or Nesta Webster, or Chrysostom I’ll just quote from a Normie hero of the 20th century. Somebody that the CREC crew can get behind;

“In violent opposition to all this sphere of Jewish effort rise the schemes of the International Jews. The adherents of this sinister confederacy are mostly men reared up among the unhappy populations of countries where Jews are persecuted on account of their race. Most, if not all, of them have forsaken the faith of their forefathers, and divorced from their minds all spiritual hopes of the next world. This movement among the Jews is not new. From the days of Spartacus-Weishaupt to those of Karl Marx, and down to Trotsky (Russia), Bela Kun (Hungary), Rosa Luxembourg (Germany), and Emma Goldman (United States), this world-wide conspiracy for the overthrow of civilisation and for the reconstitution of society on the basis of arrested development, of envious malevolence, and impossible equality, has been steadily growing. It played, as a modern writer, Mrs. Webster, has so ably shown, a definitely recognisable part in the tragedy of the French Revolution. It has been the mainspring of every subversive movement during the Nineteenth Century; and now at last this band of extraordinary personalities from the underworld of the great cities of Europe and America have gripped the Russian people by the hair of their heads and have become practically the undisputed masters of that enormous empire.”
 
By the Rt. Hon. Winston S. Churchill.
 Illustrated London Herald
February 08, 1920 — pg. 5

Now, DW, later in this piece will mock people who make the same observation above that Sir. Winston Churchill makes but this observation has been made by the best of Christian men through the centuries (and the worst of them as seen by the Churchill quote) and I suspect that it is no less true in 2022 then it was in 1920 when Winnie wrote what he wrote. The “who” question … the who as in who is the ultimate co-opter in this drama has to be answered and Sir Winston Churchill steps right up to the mic and gives us the answer. This is not to say that plenty of white shaboss goy do not exist who have played their role and need to be indicted. It is to say that the fire that is alight in Western Civilization will not be put out by anyone who does not want to face the “who” question squarely.

2.) Winnie gave us a pretty good list to offset DW’s list of guilty white shaboss goy but allow me to give a few more names.

 

So when the commies are wrecking the place, which they are, you don’t get to say that all the white people who cooked up the destructo-plans in the first place are doing their evil deeds in spite of their noble skin color, and that all the darker-skinned groups that have been enlisted as patsies in the cause are doing it because of the color of their skin. How convenient for the thesis. What my net don’t catch ain’t fish.

Bret responds,

1.) That’s cute. Except no Kinists has ever said that or I suspect ever thought it. Is DW conflating Kinism with CI?

2.) Commies are only white people DW? If Paul can justly characterized Cretins with negative attributes isn’t it time to justly characterize another specific people group as more than just being “white.” Who are the real patsies DW and who have used the willing white Shaboss Goy from time immemorial?

 

Vox Day weighs in on the matter. He is not as winsome as I am.

Doug Wilson is a Boomer Fraud