The Hatred of Patriarchy

One of the most important roles/metaphors in scripture is that of Father. In Scripture, everything is founded on the idea of Father. God is our Father who art in heaven. Ephesians teaches there is,

6one God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all.

St. Paul can say in the book of Corinthians,

yet for us, there is but one God, the Father, from whom all things came and for whom we exist.

The idea of God as Father is an architectonic idea without which the Scripture cannot hold together. Clearly, if we get the idea of Father wrong, there is nothing else right that we will understand.

One aspect of God’s Fatherhood is that He rules over all. It is why we can confess Sunday after Sunday, “I believe in God the Father almighty, Creator of Heaven and Earth.”

Jesus revealed God as His Father, told Israel that only God was their Father, not Abraham nor Moses nor David. Further, Jesus never said His Father was the chief apostle, Senior Pastor, President or any other title/function such as most Reverend Doctor, but Father. Worse yet, for the anti-patriarchalists, it is the role of the Son to declare and reveal the Father and to come and do the will of the Father.

So important is Fatherhood that the last verse of the Old Testament promises of the Messiah that with His coming  ‘He shall turn the hearts of the fathers to the children, and the heart of the children to their fathers, lest I come and smite the earth with a curse’ Mal. 4:6

One role of the Messiah was to heal the family and He would do so by turning the hearts of the fathers to the children and the hearts of the children to the fathers.

Well, if all this is so, then what can we call any movement that seeks to eliminate the biblical idea of fatherhood and the biblical idea of patriarchy…”Father rule?”

And yet this is where we are at in our social order in the West.

White people … (are for) “blood and soil, patriarchy, and racial hierarchy.”

Paul Krugman 
N.Y. Slimes Article 
Complaining about 16 Election results

Notice the venom against patriarchy in that statement. That venom is working itself out in a host of ways. Consider with me just a few moments the current attack on men. The facts I have collated here came from a recent news report,

Average American male dies 5 years earlier than the average American female.

One reason for this is addictions. Men are twice as likely to be alcoholics as women as well as twice as likely to die of a drug overdose.  In the state of New Hampshire, 73% of the opioid drug overdose deaths were men.

Nationwide 77% of the suicides recorded are by men. This represents a 43% increase in male suicides as between the years 1997-2014.  This suicide rate is falling disproportionately higher upon white men when compared to the rest of the US population. Now add to this that 90% of those incarcerated are men.

This trend is starting with our youth. In relation to females, fewer men graduate high school than women.  Fewer men attend and graduate from college than women. When in school boys far outpace girls as discipline problems. There may well be a correlation between that fact and the fact that 1 in 5 boys are diagnosed with a hyperactivity problem in comparison to 1 in 11 girls diagnosed the same. Many of those diagnosed are medicated with drugs that have no longitudinal studies that bear witness to the effects of these drugs when consumed over the course of a number of years, though there is increasing evidence that suggests that these drugs cause depression in later life.

Beyond college women decisively outnumber men in graduate programs as well as doctoral programs. Women are now in the majority of new enrollees in both law schools and in medical schools.

This bottoming out for men in the educational realm has translated into the economic realm. Between 1979-2010 working-age men with only high school degrees witnessed their adjusted for inflation hourly wage income drop 20%.  This stands in contrast to high school educated women’s income which over the same period spiked.

7 million working-age men are unemployed. Approximately half of those same unemployed working-aged men take pain medication daily. This is the highest rate in the world. No other nation is even close. Far fewer men get married than just a few decades ago and far fewer stay married.  About 1 in 5 children in America live with their single mothers. This is double the rate of 1970. This, of course, means that there are millions of more boys, and girls, growing up without fathers.

The stats show that young married age males are now more likely to live with their parents than they are their wives or a girlfriend. This stands in contrast to women of the same age who buy their own homes at almost twice the rate as their single male counterparts. More women than men have drivers licenses.

In terms of the mythical wage gap between men and women it is recognized that when you compare apples to apples — when you compare men and women in the same fields, with the same experience, working the same jobs, for the same period of time, — the putative wage gap not only often disappears but also often is inverted so that there is a slight wage gap in favor of women. One study, using US census data, found that single women in their 20’s living in metropolitan areas now earn 8% on average more than there single male counterparts. Now add that the majority of managers in the workforce are women and suddenly the long talked about unfairness to women in the workforce begins to dissipate like the fog before the morning sun.

Further, women are scoring higher on IQ tests than men are. Not only are men falling behind women in IQ tests but men are physically wasting. One recent study found that almost 50% of the young men trying to join the Army failed their entry fitness exam. Fully 7 in 10 American males are overweight or obese. This is in comparison to 59% of American females who likewise are overweight or obese.

We might say that on all counts men are becoming less male. Male sperm count is down 60% as compared to the 1970’s. Further, there has been a significant dropping in male testosterone. One study has shown that there has been a 1% decrease in male testosterone every year since 1987. This means that the average 40-year-old male in 1987 would have 30% more testosterone than his 40-year-old male counterpart in 2017. Keep in mind here that there is a correlation in men between low testosterone levels and an increase in depression, lethargy, and weight gain while seeing a decrease in cognitive abilities.

Yet the narrative continues that women are victims while men are oppressors. Universities continue to offer “Women’s studies,” with the emphasis being an attack on male power in such studies. In Churches, male patriarchy is attacked and assailed with a vicious vehemence seldom ever seen in the past by pastors who could serve as the poster child for the cucked effeminate male. Politicians craft legislation to help women in STEM fields and continue to support the false narrative of male privilege.

Clearly, men… and by extension patriarchy is under attack.

Now men and the rule of men called Patriarchy have fallen on some hard times, what with the advent of Feminism and egalitarianism. Indeed the Church in the West, in many quarters, is all in a tizzy to find some other paradigm that is more “fair” and is more “wise” than what God has provided in His Word. The consequence of this search to replace the God of the Bible’s authority for structuring marriage with a different god’s authority for structuring marriage has resulted in the wreckage of the Christian family with the residual flotsam and jetsam of broken marriages, single-parent families, and confused children. Consider About 1 in 5 children in America live with their single mothers. This is double the rate of 1970. This, of course, means that there are millions of more boys, and girls, growing up without fathers.

The cure for all this breakage is found in a return to patriarchy. In Patriarchy we find that the Christian faith gives us structure that is characterized by Love, Hierarchy, and Relatedness.

Consider the assumption concerning Fathers behind just a couple verses

Psalm 103:13

Like as a father pitieth his children, so the LORD pitieth them that fear him.

Hebrews 12:7 Endure hardship as discipline; God is treating you as his children. For what children are not disciplined by their father? If you are not disciplined—and everyone undergoes discipline—then you are not legitimate, not true sons and daughters at all.

Clearly, the assumption in these two verses is that Father rule means security, love, and discipline.

So, if that is true, why the attack on Patriarchy?

By attacking Patriarchy God is attacked. God, throughout Scripture, is known as “Father.” This doesn’t mean that God is a physical Male but it means that the way in which God makes Himself known and represented to the World is via a healthy male relationship…. as the Patriarch.

As such one way to eliminate God then is to eliminate Fathers … to destroy all notions of patriarchy. If patriarchy is destroyed completely then even positive patriarchy will be destroyed.

1 Corinthians 8:6
Yet for us there is one God, the Father, from whom are all things and for whom we exist, and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things and through whom we exist.
 
Ephesians 4:6
One God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all.
 
Matthew 23:9
And call no man your father on earth, for you have one Father, who is in heaven.
 
Psalm 68:5
 
Father of the fatherless and protector of widows is God in his holy habitation.
 
Malachi 2:10
Have we not all one Father? Has not one God created us? Why then are we faithless to one another, profaning the covenant of our fathers?
 
Ephesians 1:3
Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us in Christ with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places,
 
Isaiah 64:8
But now, O Lord, you are our Father; we are the clay, and you are our potter; we are all the work of your hand.
 
John 14:9-11
Jesus said to him, “Have I been with you so long, and you still do not know me, Philip? Whoever has seen me has seen the Father. How can you say, ‘Show us the Father’? Do you not believe that I am in the Father and the Father is in me? The words that I say to you I do not speak on my own authority, but the Father who dwells in me does his works. Believe me that I am in the Father and the Father is in me, or else believe on account of the works themselves.

Psalm 103:13

Like as a father pitieth his children, so the LORD pitieth them that fear him.

The attack on biblical patriarchy is an attack on God. By wiping out patriarchy the thought is that the God of the Bible can be wiped out from our thinking. The attack on patriarchy is an Orwellian attempt to drop the God of the Bible down the memory hole.

So, one way to argue the attack on patriarchy is that it is an attack on God in the attempt to eliminate Him from our thinking. The other way to argue the reason for the attack on patriarchy is that  God having already been deleted from our thinking it is only natural then to attack those institutions that have their origination in a God we have deleted from our thinking.   Either way, the attack on patriarchy is an attempt to scrub biblical Christianity from man’s thinking.

So, we see that the attack on patriarchy is not primarily an attack on men and their rule as it is an attack on Christianity. Attacking the proper rule of men is just one means of attacking Biblical Christianity. In this respect, it is much the same as the current attack on white people. It is not so much white people who are being attacked. It is rather Christianity which is being attacked through the attempt to genocide white men and women since white men and women, by God’s grace alone, have been the chief civilizational carriers of Biblical Christianity.  In the same way Biblical rule by men is attacked because it is Biblical rule by men as God’s representatives that accounts for civilizational Christianity over the centuries.

This attack on men and patriarchy is so widespread that is going after our language and hymns now,

Dr. Jordan Peterson — Came to the fore when he refused to use gender inclusive pronouns on a Canada University campus.

Peterson zeroed in on Canadian human rights legislation that prohibits discrimination based on gender identity or expression.

Dr Peterson was especially frustrated with being asked to use alternative pronouns as requested by trans students or staff, like the singular ‘they’ or ‘ze’ and ‘zir’, used by some as alternatives to ‘she’ or ‘he’.

In his opposition, he set off a political and cultural firestorm that shows no signs of abating.

Indeed Peterson touched the sacred cow of cultural Marxsim, the avowed enemy of Christianity.

Gender Neutral Hymns

“God of our fathers” becomes “God of the ages.”
“Rise Up, O Men of God” becomes “Rise Up, O Church of God.”

In one of the Anglican  hymnbooks “Be Thou My Vision,” #339 in the
1990 hymnal was altered. The third verse in the new construction of that  hymn became a combination of the second and fourth verses of the original. This combination was made in order to omit the second half of the second verse and the first half of the fourth verse, both of which contain masculine language referring to God.

These are the lines that were omitted:

Thou my great Father, I thy true son;

Thou in me dwelling, and I with Thee one.

and

High King of Heaven, my victory won,

May I reach heaven’s joys, O bright heaven’s Son!

You certainly can understand why all that maleness had to be eliminated.

Recently, I was in a meeting where the gathered group sang such gender-neutral hymns and then was taught by a female Rev.

This attempt to overthrow patriarchy is why Biblically minded people are so adamantly opposed to women in the office of Elder and Pastor. It’s not as if women aren’t just as smart as men. It’s not as if women aren’t as capable or more capable than men to create and deliver a fine sermon. There is nothing about femaleness that obstructs a person’s ability at exegesis, logic, and rhetoric. It is not as if women couldn’t shepherd. In the end, the reason that Biblical Christians are opposed to female Elders and Pastors is that God’s Church being patriarchal in its social order is something that arises out of God’s determination. God determined that women should not be Pastors or Elders. And when the visible Church ignores that then as one of the leading social order institutions in the culture the Church gives God’s imprimatur … His stamp of approval on the feminization of the rest of the social order. The visible Church enters in league with those who would attempt to destroy the invisible Church.

This ignoring of God’s order that occurs with the attack on patriarchy is not original to us. Indeed, many scholars offer that when the serpent went to Eve in the garden in the Temptation narrative that the serpent did so in order to upset God’s covenantal patriarchal ordering. Other scholars have offered that it was Adam as the garden patriarch who failed to keep and tend the garden and that the result of that patriarchal failure was the entrance of the serpent into the Garden culture. If this is accurate than a lack of proper patriarchy is the sin behind the original sin of the Fall.

As we move through Scripture we see the failure of biblical patriarchy to be the failure of God’s people. Usually, that failure is found in men becoming tyrants and so turning patriarchy into something rightly to be despised. Think of the wicked Kings of Israel. Occasionally, the failure of patriarchy is found in male leadership being overthrown in favor of the ugly feminization of the social order. Think of examples like Jezebel and Athaliah.

A great host of matters and people are conspiring in our culture to overthrow men and patriarchy. Consider a couple quotes in closing,

I call this god, the god of white supremacy and patriarchy…This God isn’t the God that I serve…He might be ‘biblical’ but he’s also an asshole.”

~Rutgers professor Brittney Cooper

this quote from Dr. Peter Jones who is paraphrasing Dr. Virginia Mollenkott,

“Compulsory heterosexuality is the very backbone that hold Patriarchy together.” Homosexuality will break that backbone. If society is to turn from patriarchy to partnership we must learn that lesbian, bisexual, and gay issues are not just private bedroom matters of doing whatever turns you on. They are wedges driven into the superstructure of the hetero-patriarchy system.”

Dr. Peter Jones 
Paraphrasing Lesbian Virginia Mollenkott
Spirit Wars — pg. 179

If Mollenkott is correct here then we learn that the whole LGBQT movement and all its ancillary perverseness, is, at its heart,  amount scrubbing patriarchy from our thinking.

As Christians we must resist this. We must be dissidents in our thinking should we desire to stay loyal to Christ. If the anti-patriarchalists are successful here they will destroy Christianity not by digging Christianity up by its roots but by stripping it of all its leaves.

Illustrations — Two ways to kill a plant.

Conclusion;

What the defense of Justification by Faith alone was to the Reformation the defense of Hierarchy, Patriarchy, and Distinctions are to 2017 and the Reformed Church.

Failure here is failure everywhere.

McAtee Examines George Will’s Conservative Bonafides

“You have exalted yourself against the Lord of heaven…”

Daniel 5
Daniel Addressing Belshazzar 

“But a free market economic system is a system. It is a public product, a creation of government. Any important structure of freedom is a structure, a complicated institutional and cultural context that government must nurture and sustain. Obviously, free speech is not free in the sense that it is free of prerequisites. It is not free of a complicated institutional frame. Free speech, as much as a highway system is something government must establish and maintain,” and so on and on.

A welfare state is certainly important to and probably indispensable to social cohesion and, hence, to national strength. A welfare state is implied by conservative rhetoric. A welfare state can be an embodiment of a wholesome ethic of common provision.”

George Will 
In Defense of the Welfare State — 1983

1.) Note first that Will has always been cast by the Mainstream media as a Conservative. This reveals that 35 years ago Conservatism was a joke. How much more so now? Thoughtful Christians have to realize that in terms of the political spectrum in this country we have no dog in the fight. Our dog died in 1861.

2.) Note also that the free market is not only a creation of the (presumably Federal) Government, per Will, but the free market being the creation of the Government it is up to the Government to nurture and sustain this thing that the Government has created. The whole idea of Creation, Sustaining and Governing used to be ascribed, in systematic theology, to God’s providence. Will has replaced the Christian God with the state as God walking on the earth. The State is the creator, sustainer, and governor. Man is Plato’s political animal.

3.) If a free market economic system is a ‘creation of Government’ then how is it the case that it is ‘Free market?” If it is a creation of the Government then why not refer to it as the “Government market?”

4.) Will is presupposing the old fascist line of ‘everything inside the state, nothing outside the state.’ Will has posited that the State is the overall conditioning environment in which man lives, moves, breathes and has his being. Of course, the fascists got that idea from Hegel who got it from Aristotle and Plato. No Biblical Christian can abide this horse manure thinking from the “conservative” George Will.

Increasingly, one is hearing the modernist clergy bleat about how politics does not belong in the pulpit. This quote proves that the pulpit cannot help but be political. When our wisemen, politicians, talking heads, and cultural gatekeepers arise to denounce God’s sovereignty how can the pulpit not sing out in defiance of all such pagan thinking? For the pulpit to remain mute in light of the claim that the Government is God walking on the earth would be to abandon the calling to be salt and light, it would be to go all treasonous at the very moment when faithfulness is most desperately needed, as done on a large scale it would be the end of Institutional Biblical Christianity. The pulpit must be political because politics is increasingly seeking to muscle in on the bailiwick of the pulpit. Ministers who refuse to thwap pagan thinking upside the head when pagan thinking is seeking to mold the thinking of God’s people are either stupid or cowards.

Modern conservatism is just right-wing Hegelianism.

Reflections on Passchendaele

 

During August 1917, when the battle of Passchendaele was raging, 127 mm of rain fell in Flanders which was double the normal average for that month. Combine this with the reality that Ypres, where Passchendaele was fought, was a region largely made up of flat, low ground that was kept dry only with the help of an intricate series of dikes and ditches which had been broken and shattered by the heavy shelling that Ypres had seen both with the onslaught preparing the Passchendaele assault and with the heavy shelling in the first two battles fought at Ypres. All of this meant that the terrain on which the soldiers fighting the battle of Passchendaele on was mud-hell. Some soldiers later wrote that it was like fighting on a bottomless bowl of porridge.

The mud was so gooey … so thick … so bad that many of the soldiers were drowning in mud. The trauma of this was doubled by the fact that this was a comparatively slow process. A soldier would get stuck and eventually three more soldiers would be on the scene trying to pull their comrade out of the porridge mud but with no success. It became so bad that eventually, stuck soldiers having heard of the mud drownings would beg, once a certain point was reached in their sinking, for their comrades to shoot them so that they would not suffocate beneath the mud. Many obliged their comrades. One Lieutenant became so maddened that he began hacking with his sword a soldier who was stuck up to his armpits in the goo. The Lieutenant was not being cruel, he had just flipped out at his inability to keep his men from dying in this way.

The water was pooled everywhere. However, that same water was fetid as the holes the water was filling when not filled with rotting corpses were being used as latrines. Also, the heavy poisonous gas that was part of the shelling would find the low spots as a natural residing place. The irony in all this is that the supply lines had not been able to provide fresh potable water to the front lines so that on one hand the soldiers were drenched with water while on the other hand many were languishing from dehydration.

The mud and water were so bad there was no way to advance. As such the military came up with the idea of laying down duckboards upon which the men could walk to advance. The problem with this military genius is that German machine guns didn’t bother with covering any of the ground except where the duckboards were laid down. Further, at night the German artillery would target the duckboards so that the duckboard laying had to start all over again the next day. So the rank and file soldier had to decide between taking his chances by dying in some muckhole that would swallow him whole or by dying by being a sitting duck for a German machine gunner while keeping to the duckboards.

You can look at old photos of horses and donkeys sunk up to their necks in mud and muck while still harnessed to the wagons they were seeking to pull.

There were 275,000 British casualties at Passchendaele while the Germans chimed in at 220,000 casualties.

From the time that warfare began to fascinate me (very young) till today I still cannot get my mind around whatever would move a young man to endure those kinds of conditions to fight for the wickedness of men in high places. At 12 I had already decided I was not going to Vietnam but was headed to Canada if they were still fighting that fool war when I hit 18.

Is there something wrong with me that I take all these deaths so personal of 20 something-year-olds that died 100 years ago?

Returning to Churchill … Book Review of M. S. King’s “The British Mad Dog”

Last night I completed M. S. King’s “The British Mad Dog; Debunking the Myth of Winston Churchill.”
 
It should be noted at the outset that King is not the best person to first read as a contrarian historian. King tends to be a sensationalist and to often will go too far out on a limb to affirm a questionable point. However, having admitted that, if one is already somewhat familiar with the subject matter that King is writing on, from a non-Court Historian understanding then one has the ability to read King with profit as King has the ability to bring a large amount of information together in a very simple format.
 
King is no fan of Churchill and for that, I give him credit. However, when King starts off his book suggesting that Churchill’s father was not Lord Randolph Churchill and that Churchill’s Father was instead the offspring of the King of Serbia due to one of his mother’s countless flings one realizes that King has an ax to grind. (King on this questionable Churchill parentage quotes from a book by Dragoslava Koprivica.) One thing that does seem indisputable on this score is that Churchill’s mother was indeed a tramp who gave birth to Winnie 8 months after her marriage to Lord Randolph Churchill. As such anything is possible.
 
King’s sensationalism also informs us that Churchill was quite likely a bisexual. Churchill did have five children with his wife but King insists that Churchill’s time at the British Harrow boy’s school may have introduced Churchill to sodomy. It is without question true that Churchill was surrounded by men it would later be discovered were sodomites, but of course, that does not prove that Churchill himself was a sodomite. King’s evidence on Churchill’s homosexuality is merely circumstantial. It may be true but there is nothing that proves it is true.
 
One matter that King establishes beyond doubt that also agrees with other sources is that Churchill spent money like Lamashtu drank blood. Because of Churchill’s spendthrift ways, he was forever in money trouble and that money trouble allowed Churchill to sell his soul to those who delivered him from his money pit. King cites the Jewish financiers who bailed Churchill out. They include names like the well known Bernard Baruch, as well as the Jewish group of wealthy businessmen called ‘the Focus.’ The ‘Focus Group’ was headed by Jewish Corporatists named Sir Robert Mond and Sir Robert Waley-Cohen but was not limited to these two men.
 
David Irving in a speech supports King’s work,
 
“‘The Focus’ was financed by a slush fund set up by some of London’s wealthiest businessmen — principally, businessmen organized by the board of Jewish deputies in England, whose chairman was a man called Sir Bernard Waley Cohen. Sir Bernard Waley Cohen held a private dinner party at his apartment on July 29, 1936. This is in the Waley Cohen memoirs… The 29th of July, 1936m Waley Cohen set up a slush fund of 50,000 pounds for The Focus, the Churchill pressure group.”
 
50,000 pounds in 1936 is today’s equivalent of approximately 2 million dollars. Irving goes on to insist that the 50,000 pounds was for the purpose of saber-rattling against Hitler and Germany.
 
King also speaks of a wealthy Jewish South African Corporatist by the name of Sir Henry Strakosch who via his involvement in the payment of the private debts of Sir Winston Churchill, in 1938, has been cited as evidence of Jewish involvement in British politics in the run-up to World War Two. Strakosch also supplied Churchill with figures on German arms expenditure during Churchill’s political campaign for rearmament against the Nazi regime. Strakosch’s financial arrangement with Churchill enabled Churchill to withdraw his home Chartwell from sale at a time of financial pressures. The financial relationship between Strakosch and Churchill can be sourced not only in David Irving’s work but also in Martin Gilbert’s work on Churchill.
 
King also tells the tale of Churchill’s well-known failures in the Dardanelles, Gallipoli, Antwerp, in Northern Ireland with his Black & Tans, and the invasion of Norway. King gives us a glimpse of Churchill’s alcohol problem and informs us that as an author and speechwriter Churchill was often a plagiarizer as well as a man who put his name on the work accomplished by ghost-writers. From King, we learn that the BBC Children’s voice of the Winnie the Pooh books was the man who gave some of Churchill’s speeches over the radio. That was supposed to have never been known. King reminds us that Churchill as a painter signed the name of an impressionist artist named Charles Maurin to his paintings in order to sell his painting at a greater price. King goes out of his way repeatedly to inform the reader that Churchill was a manufactured and marketed product that was packaged and sold to a gullible public. In short, Churchill excelled only in blood and mayhem but in every other respect was a phony.
 
King colors Churchill as black as possible. We are told Churchill was a terrible Father, a man who examined the idea to invade Russia after defeating the Nazis in WW II, the man who started bombing German civilian population with the desperate hopes that Hitler would retaliate, the man who advanced the New World Order’s agenda to create a uni-global political structure, a sock puppet pursuing the agenda of those who were paying his debts. It is possible that King paints Churchill in colors darker than he really was.
 
I’m not inclined to think that is possible to do.

The Implications of Hillary Clinton’s “I Loss the Election Because” Quote

“We do not do well with white men and we don’t do well with married, white women, And part of that is an identification with the Republican Party, and a sort of ongoing pressure to vote the way that your husband, your boss, your son, whoever believes you should.”

Hillary Clinton 
On why she lost to Trump

Some people would have it that Hillary is just making excuses for her loss when in point of fact the reason that she lost is that Hillary ran a lousy campaign.  Now, I quite agree that Hillary ran a lousy campaign but don’t miss that there is also a great deal of truth in this quote. The implications of this statement are breathtaking as well as the implications of some of the implications. For example,

1.) The only white people Democrats do well with are single females who typically are Feminists. If a woman isn’t married and is voting for Hillary it likely has to do with her feminism instincts.

2.) If a single white female doesn’t vote Democrat then it is obvious that either she is being oppressed and victimized by some white man in her life or she is too stupid to know how to vote without being instructed by her significant male.

3.) This is an admission that the Democratic party is now the party which appeals to minorities and single white females who are feminists.

4.) The minority and feminist vote as combined with the academician and pervert vote is now the voting base of the Democratic party. This is also the base of the cultural Marxism movement. This base has been the shock troops who have performed the “long march through the institutions” for a generation now advancing the cause of Bolshevik cultural Marxism.

5.) Because of this quote, you can now understand why providing amnesty for illegal — and so therefore criminal — immigrants is the cause celebre for the Democratic party. Without more voting non-White people in this country, the Democratic party dies.

6.) Of course, this doesn’t mean that the Republican party understands any of this. The Republican party, which should be doing all it can to increase the percentage of its white vote instead is committing hari-kari by working towards amnesty and by voting against the interest of their white working class, married, Christian base. Republicans do so in the interest of their mega Corporation donors as well as in the interest of the US Chamber of commerce.  Republicans see the huge money flow from these special interests and as such, they throw overboard the idea of a homogenous white Christian culture in the interest of the campaign funds that come from those who have an interest in a large cheap labor pool and then start mouthing the jejune blather of propositional nationhood.

7.) This means that currently, the White married middle-class non-pervert Christian has no party that is embracing their unique voting interests. In the 2016 election, this interest group voted Trump (mistakenly in my opinion) but many of them knew that Trump was an imperfect weapon. It was a vote that reasoned that as the Orcs were at the gates even a retarded Goblin as a weapon against Orcs was better than letting the Orcs in the gates. Trump was the retarded Goblin sent out to fight Hillary and the cultural Marxist Orcs.

8.) Of course, none of this means that every single minority, every single non-married white woman, every single feminist, or every single pervert votes Democratic. These are general observations, not universal observations. A simple glance of the percentage of the vote from unmarried white women, from perverts, from different minority groups establishes that there is nothing controversial in anything that has been noted in this brief post.

9.) To put this as clearly as possible, married white people who vote Democrat or Republican are voting for their own genocide. Republicans and Democrats as the political establishment are those who are serving as the political conveyor belts genociding white people… both Christian and non-Christian.

10.) Putatively Christian Churches which do not recognize and resist the machinations currently in play to genocide white people are part of the problem.