Pope Doug Attempts To Gaslight on the Bagels… McAtee Demurs

Here we find a roundtable discussion w/ Pope Doug I of the CREC. His discussion partner is primarily Andrew Isker with a couple other guys thrown in for optics.

In this discussion Wilson is defending his unrelenting and indefatigable defense of the Bagels for which he is now becoming famous. There is no doubt that Wilson has become a bulldog for philo-Semitism.

Wilson defends the Bagels by arguing (and here I am paraphrasing);

“Well, you have to understand, that the Bagels are a high performance people and as high performance the Bagels are going to be very very bad and very very “good,” depending on which way they roll, and therefore the good Bagels cancel out all the evil Bagels so that we have a wash.” 

The problem here is that the high performance Bagel Heart Surgeons, Violinists, and Commodity traders that Wilson alludes to can never balance out the high performance Bagels who have murdered, in the 20th century alone, upwards of a 100 million people.

We can’t stop there though, we must take into account the pornography industry in the West which was predominantly created and sustained by the Bagels. Following that we have the reality of the Morgans, Rothschilds, Warburgs, and Schiffs as the Bankster class who have funded wars and stolen property. We needs mention also Hollywood which was so bad in the Jews (Bagels) corrupting the morals of Americans that they were forced into complying with a moral code (Hays code) under the threat of being bankrupted by the Roman Catholic Church in its stance against the Bagel vileness on film. That lasted until the early 1960s when the Bagel was able to throw that yoke off of them, resulting in filth upon filth being hoisted on the silver screen.

We shouldn’t slow down on this score unless we mention the Bagel Philosophers who have done so much for the West. Consider that Marx, Red Rosa Luxemburg, Marcuse, Adorno, Simone Weil, Betty Friedan, and countless others whose anti-Christ “philosophy” has destroyed the West were Bagels.

Does Pope Doug really want to suggest that the high performance Bagels on the good side of the balance cancel out all the evil of the high performance Bagels who over centuries have done their flat level best to kill as many White Christians as they can?

Does Pope Doug really want to look at Church History and tell Augustine, Chrysostom, Luther, Calvin, etc. that they each and all had it wrong when it came to the Bagels? Is Wilson really going to try and tell those lads that “Jeepers guys, if only you had understood that the Bagels were high performance for good also.”

 

They would laugh in his face with Luther lobbing a choice epithet in Wilson’s direction.

As the conversation continues, Rev. Andrew Isker, who does not share Pope Doug’s convictions tries to throw in a “yeah, but” every so often but it is clear (at least to me) that Isker was invited to this conversation not to strongly put forth the counter point to Wilson’s philo-semitism but rather Isker is present to serve as a whipping boy in order for Wilson to blather his inanities and false dichotomies wherein he has become a legend.

As the conversation continues Pope Doug pauses to argue that genetics has nothing necessarily to do with being Bagel. Doug says, “no, it was about being covenantally bound, and that included shared customs, culture, language, etc.”

 

Now, if that is true then why was it so important that Jesus be able to trace His blood lineage to both David and Abraham? If Doug is right why in the world do we have all those genealogical tables in Scripture? If Doug is right then why all the prohibitions like;

Dt. 23:3 No Ammonite or Moabite or any of their descendants may enter the assembly of the Lord, not even in the tenth generation.

If being a Hebrew was only about being covenantally bound then why these prohibitions against blood descent coming into Israel? Could not Ammonites or Moabites choose to be covenantally bound?

If Doug is right then how do we explain the actions of Ezra and Nehemiah against not only foreign wives but the covenant children of Hebrew males birthed to those foreign wives?

Clearly Doug is engaged in  his “full on gaslighting mode.” A mode that is getting more and more common for Doug and his mindless CREC clergy blatherers.

As we continue fisking this “conversation” we next hear Doug asking, “Why do Bagels draw so much hatred?”

 

This prompts me to respond that if Pope Doug really doesn’t know the answer to that it only tells me that the man needs to take a few courses on Church History to learn that the Bagel is hated because of the way he has treated Christians throughout history. I might recommend that Doug starts his education on the matter by reading Maurice Pinay’s “The Plot Against the Church.” If Doug wants something more current he could flip the pages of Giles Corey’s “The Sword of Christ.” It’s all there of the ongoing war of the Bagel against Christians. Failing reading those books, if Doug wants an answer to his question as to why do Bagels draw so much hatred he might want to consider;

I Thessalonians 2:14 For you, brothers and sisters, became imitators of God’s churches in Judea, which are in Christ Jesus: You suffered from your own people the same things those churches suffered from the Jews 15 who killed the Lord Jesus and the prophets and also drove us out. They displease God and are hostile to everyone 16 in their effort to keep us from speaking to the Gentiles so that they may be saved. In this way they always heap up their sins to the limit. The wrath of God has come upon them at last.

However, I suspect Doug knows all this and in the asking of his question he is merely being Doug, which is to say he has an agenda and is merely being clever. Plus, we can’t ignore the fact that Doug has himself talked about the axe he is grinding here for the Bagels;

“My affection for Israel is personal, in addition to being theological and political. My wife’s great-great-grandfather was Rabbi Cohn, one of my co-grandfathers is a Christian Jew, my kids and grandkids have cousins who are Israeli, and according to AncestryDNA, I myself am 2% European Jewish. Nancy is 11% European Jew, her mother 26%. What all this amounts to is that our family would be much more involved on an active personal level if terrorists overran Israel than we would be if terrorists overran Vermont.”

So, Pope Doug identifying as Bagel, is all the explanation we need in order to understand his massive gaslighting.

As we continue with the youtube conversation we hear Doug saying again;

“Being a Bagel did not have to be about blood.”

Perhaps it did not have to be but that it predominantly was is seen by the Bagels not saying; “May His blood be upon us and those who are covenantally bound to us?”

Instead what we hear is the Bagel self-understanding that being a Bagel was a blood relationship;  “May His blood be upon us and our children?”

Also we should mention in the immediate quote above Doug himself talks about how Bagel blood flows through the veins of his wife and children. Contradict yourself much Doug?

Wilson complains about Isker’s Partial Preterist interpretation of Romans 11 and Gal. 4 since that means that the “covenant w/ Hagar” only lasted 30 years before God cut Bagels off.

In this complaint is Pope Doug somehow complaining that God was being unfair to the Bagels to only give them 30 years. Does Doug think that God wasn’t giving the Bagels a deserved break?

Not very Reformed Doug.

In the course of the interview Wilson again asks, all astonished, as to why people get up in arms about the Bagels. He notes that Jehovah Witnesses being Arians deny the deity of Christ (like the Bagels) but nobody gets whacked out about them and yet when Dougie brings up the Bagels “all the kittens and puppies come out to play.”

Honestly, this man either has no business being in the pulpit since he apparently knows zero Church history about the Bagels constant warfare against the Church and Christians or else he is being purposely clever and counting on the fact that people don’t know how the Bagels have consistently pursued and persecuted Christians. For Pete’s sake, does he not even know how many nations and people’s in history have tossed out the Bagels from their midst? Was it always all the time done because the Christian nations envied the Bagels?

We might want to keep in mind that Jehovah’s witness never murdered Christians and European peoples by the hundreds of millions or caused the collapse of innumerable nations through subversion, sexual degeneracy and usury.

Further, we ask if the Federal Reserve owned by Jehovah Witnesses (JWs)? Did Jehovah Witnesses murder the Tsar and usher in a communist revolution that enslaved half of Europe? Did JWs cause the Holodomor in the 1930s or advocate for abortion in the 1970sff? Did JWs attack the USS Liberty? Did JWs morally corrupt Germany in the 1920s and provoke a radical backlash?

You see, Wilson is just gaslighting. I refuse to believe that Pope Doug is so stupid as to not understand why all the kittens and puppies come out to play when he mentions the Bagels.

Next Doug invokes Woodrow Wilson as a Anglo-Saxon;

“Woodrow Wilson ruined the 20th century and he’s was Anglo-Saxon and what does that have to do it with it.”

Here Doug tries to suggest that Bagel ethnicity should have nothing to do with thinking about their behavior because after all, since Woodrow Wilson ruined the 20th century nobody indicts all Anglo-Saxons for that. The idea here that Wilson continues to gaslight upon, is that the Bagel blood is irrelevant to the fact of their ruinous behavior.

However, here Doug plays with US History. Very few people doubt the utter worthlessness of Woodrow Wilson as a President but lo and behold we learn that Wilson was Shabazz goy (a front man/ a puppet) worked by the Bagels;

https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/woodrow-wilson-was-a-hero-to-jews

Some historians will even tell you that the Bagels made a quid pro quo with the British during WW I. That quid pro quo was “you promise us a homeland (Balfour Declaration signed in 1917) and we will move Wilson to come into the European war on your side.”  Diverse documentary evidence shows that Zionists pushed for the U.S. to enter the war on Britain’s side as part of a deal to gain British support for their colonization of Palestine.

So, Wilson’s appeal to Woodrow Wilson fails because Wilson was a tool for the Bagels.

Pope Doug Wilson complains next that people are negatively preoccupied with the Bagels, but one has to ask, “Why is Dougie positively preoccupied with the Bagels?” We actually know the answer to that question as Doug, as seen in the quote above, makes it clear that he is defending his Kin. Seems Doug really is a Kinist at heart.

Next Wilson tries to draw some kind of equation between the nefarious behavior of the WASP establishment during the beginning of the 20th century and the BAGELS today.

To this we note;

1.) The WASP establishment was a utter failure but let us forget that the P in the WASP was leftist. It was not Christian in the least.

2.) It doesn’t take into account the burgeoning influence of the Bagels upon the WASP. See, for example, the history of the run up to the Balfour Declaration. Indeed, the fact that the FEDS were protecting Bagels can be seen as far back as Lincoln’s revocation of Gen. U. S. Grant’s general order #11.

3.) Theoretically the WASP could argue that the West was their land to destroy. The Bagel has no claim on Western lands to justify their destruction of those lands.

However, I will agree with Pope Doug that the WASP establishment by the turn of the 2oth was disastrous for the White Anglo Saxon Protestant people. However, as the WASP had surrendered Christ we should not be surprised.

Wilson’s next line of note is a real knee slapper;

“On the one hand, Wilson says, “Most Evangelicals are semi-Gnostic.”

On the other hand, he argues that genetics has nothing to do with identity. Speaking of Jews, Wilson says that being a Jew is not about genetics, but instead “was about being covenantally bound, and that included shared customs, culture, language, etc.” Speaking of ‘Gnosticism.'”

This is  a case of Gnosticism for me but not for thee.

As Pope Doug continues he insists that the reason Americans hate Bagels is because we envy Bagels.

I suppose that might be true in some cases, however, for Christians the reason we hate Bagels is because of how they have killed our ancestors, sacrificed our children for their Passovers (see Ariel Toaff’s work) and raped and pillaged our lands. Could it not be the reason that Christians want to keep Bagels at arms length is the same reason that nobody goes around trying to get intestinal parasites? If a person hates a parasite is it because they envy the parasite or is it because they’d prefer to be healthy?

Allow me to close out with a general observation. I do not blame the Bagels for the situation that the West is now in. I hold Christian responsible for abandoning and rebelling against Christ. If Christians in America has kept their first love the Bagels could have achieved no successful in roads in the business they have pursued. We are to blame and nobody else. However, part of waking up means we own our responsibility in rebelling against Christ and resolve to no longer be played the fool.

 

Vox Day, Vox McAtee

Over here;

MAILVOX: In Defense of Doug Wilson

Vox Day answers a letter defending Rev. Doug Wilson. It is a magnificent response. Still, despite that I can’t help but wanting to have my own go at this letter defending the Pope of Moscow.

Doug’s Defender (DD) writes to Vox Day,

Firstly, I acknowledge your critiques of Doug, and recognise that he has some enormous Boomer tendencies.

 

McAtee responds,

Is this like acknowledging that FDR was a cripple? I mean, Captain Obvious much?

DD writes,

But.

He has a growing appeal to disaffected young evangelical men (of whom I belonged).

McAtee responds,

Nobody can disagree with that sentence above. However, Doug should be to disaffected young evangelical men what marijuana was to druggies in the day, and that is only a gateway drug to the real narcotics. Doug is the wine cooler that opens the way someday to Tennessee Sipping Whiskey. If one doesn’t move beyond Doug, one remains stunted in their Christianity.

DD writes,

He spearheaded an enormous push towards Classical Christian schooling, founded on Western Civilisation (including the Greco-Roman underpinnings).

McAtee Responds,

Not to be too technical, but you do realize, don’t you, that the Greco-Romans were pagans? Classical Education has some real merit but unless it is reinterpreted through a Biblical Grid all it produces is pagans who now how to argue. I’ve seen my share of graduates from the Moscow Greystoke Manor who embody my observation.

DD writes,

It’s a huge movement, that is reintroducing the youth to the Good, Beautiful, and True.

McAtee responds,

If that is true, than certainly enough, these youths will see that Wilson and the CREC is still not that for which they are looking. If these youths are getting a taste of the good, the true, and the beautiful than soon enough they will push on from the holding tank that is not quite the good, the true, and the beautiful that is the CREC.

Imagine if you will a large room of painting canvases all set next to one another. The very first painting canvas is covered with a very watery red. The very last painting canvas is covered with a bold fire-engine red. All the canvases between the first one and the last one are canvases that each are a little more red then the previous one but a little less red then the next one in the series. Pope Doug and the CREC represents the entry level red canvas. It has introduced you to the idea of “red.” However, if you are really captivated by Red you will push on from the entry level red and eventually you’ll look back at the entry level red and see that it really isn’t that red at all.

DD writes,

They have cleaned up church liturgy, and recaptured theological maximalism, with many offshoot ministries pushing phrases like ‘Rebuilding the New Christendom.’

McAtee responds,

Cleaned up church liturgy and taken us back, in many cases, to a liturgy that goes back to smells and bells. Further, your CREC has taken up the cursed cause of Ecclesiocentrism and the fact that you may not even know what that word means, means that you have miles to go before you sleep.

And in terms of Wilson’s vision of “Rebuilding the New Christendom,” let me just say that if Wilson is successful in doing so, then I’ll be praying that the New, New Christendom will soon come to replace Wilson’s version because Wilson’s “New Christendom,” looks an awful lot like the old Liberalism of 1950. Tell me, please, how is Wilson going to build a New Christendom while holding on to the idea of “principled pluralism?”

DD writes,

This is all important foundational work to waking up Christians. It has led to me creating a homeschool co-op teaching the Classical method, and we are exposing our children to the glorious things that the Christian West has to offer.

McAtee responds,

And now someone has to come along and shore up the cracks on Wilson’s foundational work. I promise you there is something much larger than a pea under all those mattresses.

If you want your children exposed to the glorious things of the Christian West make sure you teach them about Lepanto, the Crusades, Jon Sobieski, Jan Valjean, etc.

DD writes,

Ministries like G3 ministries are on the warpath against ‘kinism’ which has significant sway over the Reformed Conservative movements.

McAtee Responds,

Have you been sleeping? Wilson’s warpath against Kinism makes the G3 look like a bunch of boy playing cowboys and injuns.

DD writes,

Guys like Doug want more mainstream appeal, so they have opted to go soft on the racial issue. They have ousted guys like Thomas Achord, which shows they mean business.

McAtee responds,

It’s clear to everybody who has eyes that Pope Doug is going for the neo-con/New York Times crowd.

And you think “outing guys like Thomas Achord” is a recommendation for Wilson and his peeps? This is like saying that Sherman should get a medal for raping and pillaging his way to Atlanta.

DD writes,

But it is worth noting that there are more guys like Thomas Achord in these organisations who will eventually start speaking out. The time doesn’t seem to have come for that yet.

McAtee responds,

And Pope Doug is the one we are all supposed to be waiting on to give the signal when the time has come for all that? Trust me… the time will never come because Doug is merely a gatekeeper interested in pushing his brand.

DD writes,

I’m sure you’re aware that racism is perhaps one of the most unforgivable sins in the Evangelical church and will get a robust and powerful reaction from the Evangelical base (especially the Boomers). He is pushing young men in the right direction, and Christian Nationalism, as promoted by Stephen Wolfe, is gaining significant traction.

McAtee responds by quoting Vox Day,

“Stephen Wolfe’s Christian Nationalism is fake nationalism. It’s a religious form of civic nationalism that substitutes Christianity for US citizenship. He’s just another gatekeeper.”

Refuting the Idea that Hate is Bad Form for Christians

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

James White

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

7.) Scripture informs me to

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Or

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

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

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

One Implication of Egalitarianism

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

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

This rule has a necessary implication?

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

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

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

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

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

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

McAtee Contra Aaron Renn on “Nationalism”

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

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

Nationalism Isn’t American

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

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

Aaron Renn

McAtee responds

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

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

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

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

Aaron Renn

McAtee responds,

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

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

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

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

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

Aaron Renn

McAtee responds,

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

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

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

Aaron Renn

McAtee responds,

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

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

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

Vice President John Calvin Coolidge
Good Housekeeping — 1921

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

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

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