A Caned Response to the Nashville Statements

Such is the case with the Nashville Statement, and the Nashville Statement Fortified. Read them and then come back.

The first says, basically, that:

  • men are men
  • women are women
  • marriage is only between one man and one woman
  • sex is only to be in marriage
  • homosexuality and transgenderism are not valid expressions of sexuality

I agree.

The second say basically the same things, but with addition declarations against effeminacy. I agree with that also. It is good to be against effeminacy, but a fortified version of a statement on marital and sexual relations is incomplete if it does not speak on how half of only two sexes are to behave! I have searched the NSF and it does say this under Article 3:

Explanation of changes: The original statement affirms the ontological equality of man and woman without also confessing man’s headship. The order in which God created man and woman has ongoing application for the relationship between the sexes, as taught in 1 Corinthians 11:1–9. In an egalitarian age it is not faithful to confess the equality of Adam and Eve without also confessing Adam’s headship.

But where is the directive that wives must choose to obey their heads? Where is the article in which they deny that wives should be irreverent, rebellious, or usurpers? Where do they affirm that wives are to be sexually available to their husbands except for agreement of a limited time? What is more important to marriage than that the wife be submissive to her husband? These are serious and timely issues of marriage worthy of writing in these statements; more so than sodomy and transgenderism.  All the more so because they make us uncomfortable.

Until I see some evidence to the contrary, I am convinced that this current generation of church leaders will always refuse to allow women to be held to account in any way real. And as far as I can tell, this leadership believes that women can only really be guilty of bad feelings and regret.

Advertisements

Real Men Don’t Impede Her Desires

Men will set expectations for other men. They will say things like, “You’re not a real man if you don’t know how to change your own oil.”, or,  “A real man knows how to harvest game from the field.”, or, “Real men help women first.” They will hold such expectations on a regular basis, and they will invent new ones as needed to make a point about the importance of this thing or the other.

Men will also set limitations for other men. They might say, “A real men would never wear a dress.”, or, “Real men don’t play video games for hours.”, or, “A real man never hits a woman.” I trust you understand the dynamic of expectations and limitations to which I refer. They know that a man is a man. What they mean by real is good; good men will do these things and won’t do those things.

Now, once in a great while a man will set a very general expectation on women. If he is a bold Christian he might say, “The Bible says wives should submit to their husbands.” It’s hard to imagine a safer statement than that. The man himself hasn’t actually placed any expectation on women.  Yet even then he will surround it with quibbles and bromides and caveats and exceptions so that the plain and unoffensive statement has no practical meaning whatsoever; lest some man out there start to actually believe what the Bible says. But at least he made some vague attempt at something that might look like an expectation if it is seen at some distance in a dark alley on a moonless night.

What he will never, ever, do is say, “Women shouldn’t  _________.” You can fill in the blank as you like. It doesn’t matter because whatever it is that you think women shouldn’t do won’t actually be said. You can think of the manliest activity, and ultimately a modern man will reason that a woman must not be forbid to do it because she wants to, and because he refuses to stand in her way. Only jerks do that, they say; only a jerks makes a women forgo something she wants to do. He will marshal all forces of technology or rule available to ensure that she gets to try whatever she wants. Worse: He can’t explain why.

He can explain that he doesn’t allow his son to wear skirts even just once a year because it is unseemly for a man to wear women’s clothes. But he cannot explain why he lets his daughter wear a ballcap, jeans, and sneakers as routine. If his son is given a doll he will throw it out, but if his daughter is given a football then the municipal Pee-Wee league needs to give her a shot on the field. If his son picks up knitting needles his father will sneer and deride, but if his daughter picks up a gun then she will be able to defend herself. If his son puts on shorts he will be corrected to dress respectfully. If his daughter dresses like a slut she is merely expressing herself, and what man would dare to make a concrete pronouncement on modesty anyway? Who does he think he is?

They can’t draw a line anywhere around women; what women are, what women aren’t;  what women are to do, what women are not to do.Any man who can find a reason to let her have her way (any reason will do) is an enlightened hero. But any man who forgets himself and tries to put real material expectations and limitations on a woman is scorned as a misogynist and belittled as a wimp who can’t handle women. He will be told it’s not his place to say what his wife or daughter–or wives and daughters in general–are to do or not do.

This is one of the themes which I have come back to over and over. I talked about it with modest dress in sports, cowgirl crossdressing, pioneer women, women roaming malls and churches in various states of disrobe… Modern Christian men simply will not stomach the idea of actual, real, discriminating expectations and limitations on women; of telling them, “No.”

 

Eloi, Eloi

Several years ago–I think at least five–I left a comment on one of Vox Day’s posts[1] to the effect that contemporary whites are weak. He commented back that my estimate was ridiculous and that whites had been the most lethal force on Earth. Well, so what? That was then, this is now.

My observations are based upon my school experiences in minority-majority schools, and, later, a 14-year period living in a neighborhood (and later whole city) as it transitioned from a white-majority suburb to one of a minority-majority. Younger but larger white students in a minority-majority school have the benefit of a better perspective on how blacks see whites. As a tall sixth grader, I had to fight a lot of black seventh and eighth graders (some of whom should have been aged into high school), much less as a tall seventh grader, and none as a eighth grader.

A typical fight starts when three to six blacks surround a white kid, and then begin to taunt him. There was no provocation to the harassment but the perception of weakness. Then the harassment turns to nudges, and nudges to pushes, and then from push to an actual punch from one of them; usually from someone on the side.

The white kid had two options:

  1. Run, and hope you don’t get tripped because black kids thought white kids on the ground were meant for kicking.
  2. Fight, and hope you don’t get knocked down because black kids thought white kids on the ground were meant for kicking.

If you chose option two, then the key to survival (aside from avoiding the ground) was to figure out which one of the black kids was the most likely to punch you (not always an easy task), and punch him first, and don’t stop punching him until a teacher comes to break it up. In my case, the middle school teachers would go get a school cop because that’s the kind of thing you have at minority-majority middle schools; so there’s an extra 30 seconds of punches that need to be thrown for the bureaucratic delay.

When the teacher or cop showed up, it was in-school suspension for the main combatants. They did not care who started it, or who defended himself. More disgustingly, they never let on to have grasped the pattern of multiple blacks jumping one white kid even though the same event occurred to some white boy at least once a week. We were all merely “troublemakers”. Justice played no role whatsoever. Street justice was absent too. White kids never stood up for one another. The white defense was that of the deer: Keep an eye out, move away when you see the predators approach, and tough luck for the stragglers.

I was lucky to be tall and by temperament happy to hurt my opponents. More: I had been blessed to have a father who taught me by discipline that–among other things–pain is fleeting, and that sometimes the act is worth the whipping (belts don’t spank). But even before my childhood that form of pedagogy had been foresworn by the vast majority of white Americans by either permissiveness, or divorce, or both. Today whites tell each other that spanking children is evil because it makes them violent and antisocial, and that divorce is really better for the children.

The bullying I described from my student days is what we’re seeing today.  Except that instead of a location in a Fort Worth middle school in the bad part of town, it has grown with the children to places like Missouri University and Evergreen State. Everybody knows whites are weak and cowardly, and everybody believes it is acceptable to beat on them because of those facts; even other whites and even the authorities.

Last night I listened to a Joe Rogan podcast with Jordan Peterson and Bret Weinstein. For three hours they talked about the dangers of racism and identity politics. Every bit of it was about the danger of past white racists, and white identity politics. They did not make even one half-feinted nod towards the rampant and current racism of blacks towards whites. And why should they? You might get in a fight if you make the black kids angry, but white supremacists are pussies.


[1] I have tried several times to find my comment and that post, but I cannot. 

It’s Catchier than “Make It More Likely”

Deep Strength says of finding a wife:

You’re pretty much on your own. Make it happen, if you want to be married.

If I understand his own story (It’s the second half of his post, check it out.): Two women connected him with the woman to whom he is now engaged. It’s catchier than “make it more likely” but the truth is that others play key roles in making it happen. Making and keeping friends is time well-spent.

This isn’t to denigrate the specific advice he gives to “make it happen”. It’s actually pretty good. But I want to add that cultivating a group of friends–with whom you are seen by women–not only improves one’s chances and one’s choices, and it not only speeds the whole process along: Friends and their respect also help maintain a wife’s attraction even when one is not on his A game.

To Hit Attraction Class 0

There is a connection between the sportsball and RPG surveys, and the law of female attraction. I titled it as The First Law, but the respect of men[1] is so important to attracting females that a man could consider it the only factor and still improve his available pool of women in ways which he could not by focusing on his other attributes.

Sportsball–particularly team versions of sportsball–teach a man how to operate in a social performance context. That’s obvious. But it also teaches him the importance of respecting his teammates. It also confers on him some of the overall respect given to the team. That respect is not zero-sum.[2] A quarterback does not get 80% of the respect while the other 20% is divided among the other players. The distribution of respect is not equal either: Each player does not get the same amount of the team’s overall respect. I could describe the distribution of respect in a few different ways. Keep in mind this is to describe a dynamic; not to define it.

Imagine a simple 1-10 scale of respect. Let’s further imagine a football team with an overall respect (GR) of 8. The quarterback is conferred a personal respect (PR) of 4 when viewed in isolation, e.g., walking around in a crowd while no one has any idea who he is. If he is recognized as the quarterback though–because of the effect of being on a team with a respect of 8–he gets 5 additional points for a total of 9 in situations where he is known as the quarterback of the football team.

A lineman gets a similar kind of boost, but lesser, and he also starts off further down the scale. Most linemen are fat because it helps them do their job. He starts at a personal respect of 2. He’s on the team, but he’s not as integral as the quarterback so only 3 points of the team’s overall respect are conferred upon him for a total of 5 in situations where he is recognized as a member of the football team. Even so–and this is the point–the fat, known lineman’s rating of 5 is more than twice as good as 2, and is even better than the fit, unknown quarterback’s rating of 4.

RPG groups function in the same way, only with lower numbers. You can learn social dynamics in a RPG group even though the social aptitude of the people is likely to start at less. As one YouTuber put it: “D&D is the most fun you can have with your brain.” There is no end to the skills and knowledge which can be applied to a RPG; writing, drawing, tactics, strategy, acting, history, conflict resolution, math, abstract thinking… And like sportsball, RPGs are a social performance activity, and even though the activity itself is done by “dweebs“, there are residual respect effects conveyed upon members of the group if the members of the group known are known as a group; even if the group’s specific activity is hidden… a secret which I might recommend in the case of RPGs.

You aren’t in control of what is cool, but even activities which are less cool can provide benefits. Five dudes hanging out to discuss their RPG is only going to attract a few nerdy girls, but it attracts girls at all it’s because there is a group. (Yes, there are girls out there who want to invade RPG groups. If you don’t like sports: Marry one of those.) And the gamemaster is going to get a greater share of the overall respect (PR 1 + GR 2) than a player (PR 1 + GR 1). A lone guy reading a RPG book or planning a campaign isn’t going to attract even one girl; hardly ever, because he remains a 1. As dorky as RPGs might be, 2 is twice as good as 1.

My example answers to the surveys were my actual answers. I played baseball (I was good.) and basketball (I was terrible.), medaled gold and bronze on the Academic Decathlon team, and played RPGs at least once every two weeks with my friends…and we never–ever!–told anyone–especially girls!–that we played D&D.

We all played sports and went to parties and absolutely ruled the sand volleyball courts at the park. We never discussed D&D at school. We were not the trench-coat-n-fedora guy muttering over a rulebook in the cafeteria during lunch.

The main thing is we were seen as a team of friends who respected each other and that group dynamic attracted girls. At the same time: We didn’t shoot our own wheels off by telling the unprivileged about our nerdy activities. (I didn’t talk about Aca-Dec much, either.) Later, as girls became girlfriends only then would we nonchalantly let it be known in an organic situation. “Hey babe. Yeah, I can’t go tonight. Me and some guys are going to hang out, watch a movie, and maybe play some D&D.” 


[1] I prefer respect to status because the latter has a rhetorical effect in that it conjures up rankings in a way that can mislead. A commissioned officer has more status than a noncommissioned officer, but he doesn’t necessarily have more respect. A king has ultimate status in the kingdom, but a respected general can usurp him.

[2] Professional sports as practiced in the the US perverts team sports into something close to a zero-sum game because of the amount of money involved, and because of formal sports journalism.

 

 

Cane’s First Law of Female Attraction

This past weekend I was reminded that I still have not posted the basic concept which I am about to write, but which I have stated over and over since my first (guest) post in the Men’s Sphere. It also prompted me to come up with the category Economy of Respect . I’ll call it “Cane’s First Law of Female Attraction”.

Women are attracted to men who are respected by others; especially other men.

Some of you introverts may be skeptical so here’s a dead-common real-world example. The quarterback has a girlfriend because he’s the quarterback of the football team. Without the team he’s still talented, athletic, and so forth…but he’s not nearly as popular. It greatly matters that he is the leader of a team of men. But even better: Fat white lineman have girlfriends, too.

Everything else–looks, money, power, etc.–does its real work by gaining the respect of men. The women follow that. So:

  • If you want to find a woman: Get friends who respect you, and be seen with them by women.
  • If you want to help a man find a woman: Be a respectful friend to him, and be seen doing it.
  • Single woman: Look for groups of respectable men. You will be attracted to most of them. Give an eligible one your number.
  • Married woman: Encourage your husband to spend time with his friends. I bet you get jealous.

On the Problem of a Romantic View of Germanic Women

I might want to refer to this later, so I’m cross-posting here a comment whichI made at Dalrock’s on his post “Riding to Lancelot’s Rescue”. He quotes C.S. Lewis:

They effected a change which has left no corner of our ethics, our imagination, or our daily life untouched, and they erected impassable barriers between us and the classical past or the Oriental present. Compared with this revolution the Renaissance is a mere ripple on the surface of literature. […] [A] glance at classical antiquity or at the Dark Ages at once shows us that what we took for ‘nature’ is really a special state of affairs, which will probably have an end, and which certainly had a beginning in eleventh-century Provence.

In “Masterpieces of Medieval Literature”, the author talks about this extensively; driving home the point that none of the surviving literature[1] of the Germanic/Norse peoples deal with romantic feelings as a thing separate from sex. The only woman in Beowulf is Hrothgar’s wife–with whom Beowulf has no significant dealings–and Grendel’s mother. Beowulf kills her. Brynhildr is a significant character in the stories of Sigurd, but Sigurd’s attachment to her isn’t a religious-devotion-like romance.

In the Icelandic Eddas[2a], there are stories which include women who make large impact on the stories, but none of them have a purely romantic–by which I mean extra-sexual–element. There is a story about a great man named Gunnar who married a beautiful woman with “the eyes of a thief” and who brings about his death because he once slapped her for stealing. She had two previous husbands killed for the same offense.

However, there was a custom of the Germanic/Norse people which was activated by Romantic Fever and caused it to have a more deleterious effect than in southern Europe: Germanic/Norse and Celtic women had much greater freedom, authority, and strength than either the women of southern Europe, or those of the Near, Middle, and Far Easts.

Once Romantic Fever took over those peoples, pedastalization of women–and thus Feminism–was probably already an unavoidable symptom. Under the infection of religious-devotion to “love”, those Germanic/Nordics had beautiful, strong, independent demi-goddesses on their hands. In more Latin lands (Italy, France, etc.) Romantic Fever didn’t elevate women to such heights.[2b]

[1] This is significant, says Shutt, because only the most popular, the most retold, stories would have survived. The Germanic peoples were late to the written tradition and passed on their stories via an oral tradition. While it’s possible that at one time there existed stories with “romantic” elements, logic says that they weren’t popular, i.e., if they did exist, they didn’t resonate with the audience.

[2a] Because of it’s relative isolation from the rest of Europe, Iceland was less effected by European trends. These descendants of the Norse people (and some Irish) weren’t infected with Romance Fever as early, or for as long, as the Continentals. This allowed them to become literate, yet not become severely romantic. Meanwhile, in mainland Europe, Germanic traditions were infected. So while the same stories of the oral tradition live on for a bit, they were treated as vulgar and passe…sort of like the American Coastal Elite’s view of gun-toting Bible-thumpers.

[2b] We still see this today. My home, Texas, is to America what America is to the world. And it is absolutely lousy with strong, beautiful, independent women who are loud, obnoxious, and monstrously entitled–and the men who enable them. “Sassiness” is virulent. The majority are downright stiff-necked, crude, and ungrateful. Texans are, perversely, proud of this. Women like Sarah Palin are hugely popular down here, and seen as the epitome of conservative strength.

(This post was edited to correct attribution of the quote from Dalrock to Lewis.)

Stronger Together (for now), or: Make Weddings Great Again

I’ve been listening to more of Bill Kristol’s Conversations; especially those with Harvey Mansfield. The first effect of which has been to expand my list of classics; Tocqueville, Machiavelli, Hobbes, Locke, J.S.Mills, Strauss, Mansfield himself…

Since those books yet remain for me in that classical state, I can only comment on what he briefly explains. There are over 12 hours of Mansfield speaking though, and he returns to the same topics over and again. So I have probably learned a few things which I will test as I remove titles from  my personal list of classics.

  • Zippy is right: I have been a right-liberal. I previously admitted to be a right-liberal before, but limited it to an accordance with his interpretation of things, i.e., “on his blog”. That was wrong. Modernity (a whole ‘nother thing which I’m only now seeing from outside) is what we live in, and it taught me that its (modernity’s) notions of right and left were true. They’re not. It turns out that there is a very long conversation about politics and the dichotomy was established a long time ago. The character, or spirit, of each side is probably beyond dispute: Democracy (Liberalism/Left) or Aristocracy (Authoritarianism/Right). There are several/many forms of each, but there are only two real philosophies (or principles). Every mixture of the two requires some kind of mental investment in a paradox. That’s in the best case. In the worst mixtures one requires doublethink. I like the former and hate the latter. My problem, and not just mine, is that the unstoppable force of democracy is crashing full-speed into the immovable object of reality. Unfortunately I’m between them, and quite squishable. Paradoxes are a kind of crash-cage protection, but fear causes one to grasp at doublethinks as a kind of insulation…but at some point enough pillows will smother you.
  • All these old guys (Kristol, Mansfield, Larry Summers, Charles Murray, etc.) are hesitant to say that men do good things too, and often at times and in ways that women can’t, and they take pains to say that women might do it, too. They really put men down. Mansfield at least makes the case that this is a problem (even as he does it) and makes snide comments that the powers-that-be are who muzzle us.
  • There’s this argument called the fact value distinction of which I did not know that I had picked a side (value). In modernity–because of modernity–democracy has elected fact. I am at odds again with the majority; though I confess that my preference was instinctual, subconscious, or in some other way less-than-consciously-reasoned. Irrational, but correct. A great deal of Right thought is irrational. It (knowledge or wisdom) can’t always be logically deduced, or logically consistent. I’m good with that, but then we get into accepting paradoxes, and also threatened by doublethinks.
  • One thing that I extracted from the spaces between Mansfield’s words is that No-Fault Divorce was probably an inevitable “innovation” of democracy. Democracy’s spirit is not just consent, but retractable consent, or arguable consent; a consent that is always up for debate. Here we get to one of those doublethinks because consent that is debatable is not really consent. If it is debatable, then it’s not real. So when some feminist (who is a kind of democrat/liberal/leftist) argues that she didn’t really consent to marriage, or sex, or whathaveyou: She is correct in the sense that she is more in-line with the spirit of liberalism. Her correctness matters and resonates because our society just is ruled by Liberalism. According to that spirit, No-Fault Divorce corrects an oversight of our forebears: The right of a wife (theoretically any spouse but effectually a wife) to hold a new election for Husband. A democracy with only one binding election does not keep with the spirit of democracy/liberalism. Binding isn’t what liberty does. No-Fault Divorce is a call to stand for election to office.

So, as I was saying, I was a right-liberal…I do not think I will stand for election again.

Whore Mother May I

The woman was arrayed in purple and scarlet, and adorned with gold and jewels and pearls, holding in her hand a golden cup full of abominations and the impurities of her sexual immorality. And on her forehead was written a name of mystery: “Babylon the great, mother of prostitutes and of earth’s abominations.”And I saw the woman, drunk with the blood of the saints, the blood of the martyrs of Jesus.

When I saw her, I marveled greatly.

I’m sure most of my readers are familiar with Dalrock’s repeated skewering of theological cross-dressing. So they’re also aware that in Protestant teaching and churches this happened under the teaching of the theology of Complementarianism. The Council for Biblical Manhood and Womanhood was formed in 1987 specifically to spread that theology. They have been widely and wildly successful.

But did you know that complementarianism first becomes a thing in a movement called New Feminism? New Feminism is a conservative feminist movement of the 1920s supposedly meant to combat radical feminism by swallowing the radical conceits under a dress. There are overlaps in leadership with the suffragettes. It was also a Roman Catholic movement. The writings of John Paul II are supportive of New Feminism, and I do not know of a retraction from either Benedict XVI, or Francis.

What I observe when I look at Protestant or Roman Catholic clergy is that they are far-and-away more likely to be sons of their mothers rather than sons of their fathers. In short: Clergy are a collection of Momma’s-boys. This makes sense once we realize that the organizing thought of New Feminism, and therefore Complementarianism is around the concept of Mother; not wife, or sister, or daughter. Those are viewed as larval stages. Full-grown woman is Mother. But the Bible, and most of the vastness of Christian theology, teaches men that we are to be imitators of Christ. Christ’s emphasis is on being a son of God; even when full-grown.

Let me say the overarching theology of Christian Complementarianism clearly: The vocation of men is to be Sons of God, and the vocation of women is to be Mothers of God.

What I have also observed of the women of Christian churches is that the majority of them both affirm and excuse the abuse of sex as a means to get what they want (attention, material objects, affection, status, etc.) rather than as the enjoyable work of marriage. They abuse sex by fornicating while unmarried to get what they want, and by refusing sex while married; to either display their unhappiness, or with the full-blown sexual refusal which is divorce. This is the essence of whoredom. The rumors about Catholic school-girls are not unfounded, nor are those about the daughters of Protestant preachers and deacons.

Proposed: Complementarianism just is matriarchy. It was smuggled into churches under the guise of the goodness of motherhood which scratched itchy conservative ears. It has delivered to us whores, and delivered us unto whores.

Christian Nationalism vs. Zombie Nationalism

I’m jumping ahead a bit here, but I want to write about the thing which, if one accepts it, then it brings into question all the assumptions of a nationalism based on the material instead of the spiritual. That thing is marriage. Here’s Jesus Christ on marriage:

He answered, “Have you not read that he who created them from the beginning made them male and female, and said, ‘Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’?So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate.”

Obviously the husband’s flesh is not fused to the wife’s so that it is materially inseparable, yet we must accept the truth of married oneness as real–more real than material flesh. In marriage it is in the flesh of the spirit that the two are truly made one. Whatever the spiritual flesh of the husband, so also the wife. The different genetics of a man and wife do not hinder this real union. In sane societies, and for the majority of history, that truth is an was recognized by even the laws of men who preceded Christ’s birth and those who never heard of Him after it.

Even legal prohibitions and taboos against inter-ethnic marriage are subject to this real law of the spirit. The prohibitions and taboos are attempts to stop the bringing together of what such prohibitors believe ought not be brought together, but the existence of the prohibition confesses it can be done. Which brings us to St. Paul

15 Do you not know that your bodies are members of Christ? Shall I then take the members of Christ and make them members of a prostitute? Never! 16 Or do you not know that he who is joined to a prostitute becomes one body with her? For, as it is written, “The two will become one flesh.”

The modern thing for St. Paul to have said about Christians banging prostitutes was some form of annulment: “That didn’t count.” He doesn’t. Instead he doubles-down:

17 But he who is joined to the Lord becomes one spirit with him. 18 Flee from sexual immorality. Every other sin a person commits is outside the body, but the sexually immoral person sins against his own body.

Here’s that more-real-than-material flesh of the spirit showing up again. A man is not penetrated by the woman; yet sexual immorality is inside his body. Gluttony, or the eating of things which are unclean (for that person) is certainly a sin which involves taking things into the body, yet Paul says it is a sin that is outside the body. Paul explains how this is so.

19 Or do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit within you, whom you have from God? You are not your own, 20 for you were bought with a price. So glorify God in your body.

Later he will write to this same church:

16 From now on, therefore, we regard no one according to the flesh. Even though we once regarded Christ according to the flesh, we regard him thus no longer.17 Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation. The old has passed away; behold, the new has come.

The passing away of the old and and the coming of the new is true of all those who are in Christ, and it is wholly true of those in Christ. Genetics can’t stop it because genetics are old, dead flesh.

In case my father ever reads this I should address the stumbling block put before us by Progressives who are sexually immoral and revilers and swindlers. It seems that every-other piece of media produced (not to mention the lives of our celebrities in sports and entertainment) sells the idea of interracial sex (especially of the black man and white woman variety) as if it were the pinnacle of human achievement.

We ought to recognize that it is a taunt aimed at take our minds off the real and focus on the worldly. It is false doctrine, a corrupt idol meant to stand in the place of the reality of unity in Christ, but which actually has nothing to do with the spirit and is full of spite. Progressives live according to the flesh, and they are portraying what should not be for others who live according to the flesh. It hits a lot of notes for them:

  • It flouts the spirit of the law of God to keep separate those things that ought not be brought together (though their standard is wrong because it is old)
  • It offends people who they hate and
  • It elicits revelry from other sexually immoral revilers and swindlers

Perhaps what I’m describing is difficult to comprehend… An analogy to the Progressive and materialist idol of interracial sex and marriage would be cannibalism. Jesus said at the Last Supper that this bread is His body and this wine is His blood, and we are to eat and drink it as if it were so[1]. The material idolatry of that reality is cannibalism. Have you noticed how rampant vampires, werewolves, zombies and other cannibals are these days? How many of those pieces of media feature interracial sex? All of them?

So if anyone is not in Christ and still of the flesh and the world and still blind to the truth: Do not partake in the eucharist, do not eat people, and do not have have sex with someone of another race.

I still have more to repeat from St. Paul, and will write more about the absence of Jews.

[1] The fact is we eat things as if they were those things even when they are those things. You eat cake as if it were cake. That you are actually eating cake doesn’t change that fact that you eat it as if it were cake.