The Disrespect for Marriage Act

Does Biden and the FEDS know something that Doug Wilson doesn’t?

Yesterday, amidst much pomp and circumstance Joe Biden signed the “”Respect For Marriage Act.” This Bill disallows any State in the future from passing legislation that forbids or criminalizes any one from entering into a marriage with a person of the same sex or from entering into a marriage with a person of another race.

Biden’s remarks during the signing makes that clear;

“For most of our nation’s history, we denied interracial couples and same sex couples from these protections. We failed. We failed to treat them with the equal dignity and respect. And now, the law requires interracial marriage and same sex marriage must be recognized as legal in every state in the nation.”

While most conservative Christians will (for now) insist that same sex marriages are against God’s design for marriage most would not concede that interracial marriage is against God’s normative design for marriage. And yet, it seems the FEDS are tacitly admitting that both sodomite marriage and inter-racial marriage are unnatural marriages by yoking the recognition of said marriages in the same bill.

Men have short memories but it really is the case that inter-racial marriages were seen as almost just as scandalous in 1961 in much of the West as same-sex marriages are seen today. And a day is coming, I suspect, when we will recall the day when same-sex marriages were seen as just as scandalous as the eventual coming scandal that some will see in sanctioning Adult-young children marriages.

Now, we energetically admit that same-sex marriage is more unnatural than inter-racial marriages just as we would concede that same sex marriage is more unnatural than human-cow marriage. (I’m sure that even now there are activists out there about to insist; “But what about our rights to get married to Bessie the Cow?”) However, all because something is more unnatural than something else doesn’t mean that the less unnatural something is still not unnatural. Inter-racial marriage is unnatural in as much as it seeks to smash together into one union realities (race, culture, background, tastes, history etc.) that are by their very nature vastly dissimilar. However on the scale of unnaturalness inter-racial marriage is just not as much un-natural as same sex marriage.

Allow me to submit that as a people we would have never gotten to same sex marriage if we had not already blown past centuries of previous legislation that disallowed the unnaturalness of inter-racial marriage.

Keep in mind here that it doesn’t matter how prevalent something is for it to be unnatural. If somehow all future marriages contracted ended up being same sex that wouldn’t make all those marriages any less unnatural. One doesn’t arrive at determining what is natural and unnatural by counting noses.

Allow me to also observe that having arrived at the codification of the un-natural and even more un-natural we will now keep going from un-natural to ever more un-natural. There will be no stopping point for what constitutes marriage. Polygamy and Polyandry will eventually make a huge comeback, though in terms of the history of mankind those are far less unnatural than the unnaturalness of sodomite marriage.

Further, threesomes plus will be sanctioned I am sure. I can even see the day when marriage between a man and child will be sanctioned…. perhaps even as between a man and his favorite farm animal. Once is marriage is redefined away from God’s definition of marriage there is no rational stopping point.

Of course, all of this is an attack on the Biblical definition of marriage and family. One of the chief designs of those who hate Christian civilization is to destroy marriage and the family and by this legislation that Biden signed yesterday we are close than ever to that reality.

At the end of the day my objection to all this rests in the continued attempt of the New World Order to completely relativize all truth so that the International FEDS will be the ones dictating right and wrong. I also object to the project that seeks to make all color bleed into one in the attempt to completely destroy the idea of distinct race and ethnicity that God created us with. I also object to the incipient egalitarian impulse of all this.

In these kinds of controversial statements there is always the necessity to qualify so that those who want to set their hair on fire will find some reason to calm down. Here is my qualification;

Even though I firmly believe that inter-racial marriage is unnatural I fully realize that these arrangements are going to exist. And while I do think people should be dissuaded from contracting said marriages, and that for the good of the social order that marriage is supposed to be supporting and for concern of future children of said marriages, at the same time I don’t believe people who enter into those marriages are beyond the grace of God or beyond support from communities as I do believe is the case for those who enter sodomite marriages who refuse to leave them.

Every culture/social order will have to survive some un-naturalness in its midst. However, every culture/social order can only survive so much un-naturalness. With the bipartisan support of the “Respect for Marriage Act,” we have reached a whole new level of “un-natural,” with its insistence that we must respect marriages between two women or two men. This is a level of unnatural wherein the Biblical family unit will not survive.

This brings us to the irony in the name of the Bill. Washington will consistently reveal to the careful observer what they are doing by the euphemistic titles they give to their bills. It is almost always the case that the title of Federal Legislation is inverse to the reality. Can you imagine anything more disrespectful to marriage than redefining it so it is inclusive of sodomite marriages?

In conclusion the note here that is being reached for is love for healthy natural families. Doubtless, the accusation will be tossed that I am the “Hater,” when in point of fact I am the one who is saying what I am saying out of love for future marriages and for people and for future children. Only someone who hates a natural order will hate me for advocating for what has been held to be natural for thousands and thousands of years, and that merely because I refuse to invest in the lie.

A Discussion on Alienism, Alienists & Their Technique

Lately it has been all the rage to go all self-righteous on the wickedness of Kinism. Barnyards full of shinola has been shoveled upon this completely Biblical and Historical truth. I have done plenty of defending of Kinism on Iron Ink but tonight I thought I would go on the offensive by attacking the position that is the opposite of Kinism and that is Alienism. Alienism goes by other names such as Oikophobia, and Xenophilia. Alienism could also justly be considered the racial colonization of white people. Alienism could also be justly considered white people genocide.

Here is a working definition of that worldview which Kinism is fighting hammer and tong;

Alienism is a non-Caucasian supremacist and genocidal ideology that holds that non Caucasian races should be the central organizing principle for social orders. This is seen in the push for the replacement of whites in their own homelands. This, likewise then entails the genocide aspect of the Alienist supremacist ideology. Alienists, because of their supremacist ideology do desire to see whites enter into as much inter-racial marriage as possible since that serves both the supremacist and genocidal aspects of Alienist ideology. Alienism is often associated with the concept of humanist theocracy, in which the state is governed by humanist law. The Alienist movement has been widely embraced by the both mainstream and putatively conservative churches thus revealing that the Alienists have successfully taken over these institutions once owned by the Kinist; Jesus Christ. Alienism is embraced by many self-hating white people as well as large majorities of minorities. Typically Alienism is driven by the non-Christian cultural Marxist World and Life view.

Ironically enough Alienists when viewed through a different prism are themselves Kinists as I explain here;

Alienism is Kinism

Alienism in America is seen most visibly as America becomes increasingly non-white and “post-racist.” In this context the historic Christian white America of the past becomes increasingly alien and incomprehensible. All that was good, and true, and beautiful about the America prior to the hegemony of multiculturalism is besotted with accusations of being vile, ugly, and “racist,” as hurled by the Alienists. The heroes of America from once upon a time, per the Alienists, must be changed out for the heroes of the “new America.” The truth of the old Christian white America must be surrendered in favor for lies being called “truth,” as put forth by our new Alienist overlords. A new Alienist morality also enters in as the old Christian morality is blamed for the the plight of those who have now seized power.

The game of the Alienist is put forth as merely making old wrongs right but in point of fact what is going on is the displacement of Christian white America in favor of the inverting of normalcy which is a trademark among Alienists. The ascendancy of Alienism means that every heretofore normal value of society is destroyed in the name of whatever was once alien to Christian white society. If it goes against the grain of what was only recently normative it is to be embraced in order to throw off Christian white understandings of normalcy. This is the morality of Alienism.

Typically modern Christians are afraid to identify or call out Alienism for fear of being labeled “Kinist” or “Racist” or “Nationalist,” or some variant thereof. For modern Christians the #1 fear is being labeled with one of the above pejoratives. One can appreciate their fear since being successfully smeared with this by the Alienist can result in loss of career, friends, and reputation. A game has been played on the Christian white man which has placed them in this position. That game involves a double standard that is difficult to identify. Lawrence Auster in his book, “Our Borders, Ourselves; America in the Age of Multiculturalism explains this bait and switch;

“The collective existence of whites is always about ‘power,’ which is bad, while the collective existence of brown people is always about ‘identity,’ which is good. When people of color feel threatened, it is their identity which is good. When people of color feel threatened, it is their identity that must be protected and nourished. But when whites feel threatened, it is their power that they must give up. ‘The Far Right fears ethnic pluralism because it threatens their power,’ says David Maybury-Lewis. But what if Maybury-Lewis had said, ‘The Far Right fears ethnic pluralism because it threatens the identity of Whites, indeed their very existence as a people and culture’? Suddenly the ideological shift of the discussion would have shifted, and we would recognize that whites have (or ought to have) the same concerns about their collective identity and existence that non-whites have about theirs.”
Lawrence Auster
Our Borders, Ourselves — p. 46

The Alienist employs this double standard with great effectiveness against the Christian white man with the result that the Christian white man can bear any insult except that of being called a “racist,” or “Kinist” or “nationalist,” since the Christian white man has been convinced that embracing the interests of their people, instead of being healthy, is only about the naked use of power in order to keep non-Caucasians down. In this double standard used by the Alienist the only way the Christian white man can show how noble he is, is by surrendering his inheritance, his land, and even his God to the Alienists. This kind of surrender is just a form of ethnocide.

No Charge Advice to the CREC on the Issue of Proposed Memorials

The Kinists continue to make a splash in the Ecclesiastical world. The splash is usually in the form of those reputed to be pillars in the church spitting out our name like someone spitting out a mouthful of petrol after a siphoning event gone bad.

It’s funny how Kinists are constantly referred to pejoratively as “Elijah One-tooth,” while at the same time it will be said that we are a bookish group who spend too much time in our libraries. It will be said that we are irrelevant since our numbers are so miniscule and yet whole denominations will erect confessional walls to make sure we are kept out.

The most recent seeking to raise confessional like walls against Kinism is the CREC — home of Pope Doug I. Now, the new word for a confession is a memorial and it looks to be the case that the CREC is going to try and raise a memorial to squelch all the white boy summer young guys in their denomination. I mean, you don’t speak to an issue unless it is threatening your bailiwick. Believe me, the CREC finds Kinism to be a real threat.

In light of all this we have two new proposed memorials that those reputed to be pillars in the CREC are pushing. The first one is titled, “On Ethnic Balance” and reads;

“We believe the human tendency to congregate around shared affections is natural and can be good — it creates the blessings of cultures and subcultures, for example. But as with all natural goods in a fallen world, there is a temptation to exalt it to a position of unbiblical importance, thus making it an idol. While an ethnic heritage is something to be grateful for, and which many be preserved in any way consistent with the law of God, it is important to reject every form of identity politics, including Kinism — whether malicious, vainglorious, or ideologically separatist/segregationist.”

Just a few observations;

1.) As Calvin said, “the heart is an idol factory.” So, yes, shared affections can become an idol. Anything and everything can become an idol. So, since anything and everything can become an idol then why pick natural affections as the one potential idol that needs to be warned against? Could it be as suggested above that more and more people are becoming epistemologically self-conscious about the normalcy of properly ordered affections and so the CREC, being led by those who remain locked in Communist Civil Rights era thinking are knee-jerking against the idea, fearful that if people start loving their own again that will inevitably be followed by legislation demanding “white only public water fountains?”

2.) Here is a definition of identity politics. Remember, the CREC is committing themselves as being opposed to those who operate per the definition that follows;

politics in which groups of people having a particular racial, religious, ethnic, social, or cultural identity tend to promote their own specific interests or concerns without regard to the interests or concerns of any larger political group.

I hope the CREC realizes that with the forbidding of “identity politics” they have just committed themselves to opposing legislation that supports quotas, diversity hiring, and set asides. I hope the CREC realizes that with this memorial they have put themselves in the position of opposing the Black Congressional caucus, the Hispanic Congressional caucus, the NAACP, not to mention black churches and black Universities everywhere. With this memorial the CREC is going to have to do something about CREC member Chocolate Knox saying things like, “Give me the black church or I die.”

But, perhaps, as I suspect, what the CREC is really going after white people daring to do identity politics. Maybe it is the case in the “thinking” of the CREC, as I suspect, that only white Kinists are guilty of embracing identity politics that never fail being malicious, vainglorious, or ideologically separatist/segregationist?

If that is the case then clearly the CREC is being racist against white people and that sure sounds like identity politics.

2.) Note how the above violates the law of non-contradiction;

On one hand ethnic heritage is something to be grateful for and which many be preserved in any way consistent with the law of God, but on the other hand that ethnic heritage — which is something to be grateful for — must reject the normative means by which we preserve the ethnic heritage for which we are grateful. Which is it old chaps?

3.) Sorry, but I have to ask if the CREC really means this. Can you imagine a Chinese church seeking to become a member church of the CREC with the stipulation that they intend to remain a Church that serves the Chinese people. Can you believe that such a application for CREC membership would be rejected? Neither can I.

The CREC with this proposed memorial is really going after white Christians who dare to love their own kith and kin. The CREC seems to believe that white Christians who would echo Chocolate Knox by saying, “Give me the white Church or I die,” are unlike Chocolate Knox idolaters.

The second proposed memorial of the CREC is on Anti-Semitism. Now, keep in mind that Pope Doug I has been making quite the big deal about how Jewish is family is recently. The cynic in me thinks that Pope Doug I is doing this because he is seeking to inure himself from charges of Anti-Semitism. If Pope Doug can get out in front of this issue by;

1.) Broadcasting that his grandchildren are descendants of Rabbi Cohn
2.) Damning by way of implication those who he deems as the true Anti-Semites
3.) Embracing a memorial on the subject

then Pope Doug I makes it harder for him to have the Anti-Semite card played against him. So, in order to clear himself he will throw others under the bus.

Hey … who ever said church politics were pretty?

Here is the proposed CREC memorial on Anti-Semitism

“We believe that conversion of the Jews is key to the success of Christ’s Great Commission, and it is incumbent upon us to pray and labor toward that end. While, apart from Christ, the Jews are as all others — alienated from God — they have remained an object of God’s care because the gifts and calling of God are irrevocable. God’s plan for converting them is for them to see Gentile nations under the blessings of Christ’s lordship, thus leading them to long for the same. Hence, the cancerous sin of Anti-Semitism has not place in God’s plan.”

A couple observations;

1.) If the Jews are the key to the success of Christ’s Great Commission it is hard not to see how all the focus of missions should not be placed upon the conversion of the Jews. This brings us back to the 19th century heresy called “Dispensationalism.”

2.) In the same vein when it is said that the Jews have remained an object of God’s care how else can we take this except to observe that God watches over Jews more than he does Intuits, Peruvians, or Ndebele. This wards of Anti-Semitism by embracing Philo-Semitism.

3.) This requires a unique reading of Romans 11 that isn’t accepted by everyone in the Reformed world.


All in all, this proposed memorial is just a return to the Judaizing so warned against in Scripture, as it makes the Kingdom of God Jew central and Jew dependent.

Here is my proposal for a memorial for the CREC. I hope someone will pass this on to Pope Doug and the Cardinals in the denomination in hopes that those men will come to his senses;

“We believe the human tendency to have disordered affection is natural in fallen man and is a result of the fall and an evil that men often fall into. Disordered affections create a conflict of interest in families, cultures, nations, and churches. As with all fallen men living in a fallen world, there is a temptation to call good, “evil” and evil, “good.” Alienism is guilty of this. We resolve to teach God’s people the biblical importance of loving their Fathers and Mothers and families without turning them into idols. Contrary to the zeitgeist we promise to esteem ethnic heritage reminding God’s people to be thankful for the families/tribes/nations He has ordained to set us in. In this context we resolve to warn all of God’s people against an Alienism, Xenophilia, and Oikophobia that would displace rightly ordered affections for disordered affections.”

HC 30; Jesus the Alone Savior

Question 30: Do such then believe in Jesus the only Savior, who seek their salvation and welfare in saints, in themselves, or anywhere else?

As we continue through our examining of the Heidelberg Catechism we are reminded here of what has been said previously. Previously, we said that one purpose of the Catechism was to distinguish Reformed thought from other expressions that were either barely Christian or not Christian at all. This question and answer provides one example.

Clearly here the Catechizers have Roman Catholicism in their sites. Rome taught then and still teaches that Jesus is not the only Savior because Rome taught then and teaches now that praying to Mary and the saints is appropriate.

Scripture teaches that Jesus is the alone mediator between God and man.

For there is one God and one Mediator between God and men, the Man Christ Jesus… I Timothy 2:5

When prayers are offered up to saints, the saints become what this passage denies and that is mediators between God and man. The catechism takes this error very seriously and insists that people who pray to the saints, however well intended they may be, are not in point of fact trusting Jesus Christ to be their only savior. The implication here is that people who do not trust Jesus Christ to be their only savior do not have Jesus as their savior at all. This question and answer reads out of the Christian faith Roman Catholics who really believe in the doctrine of praying to the saints.

This is the answer the HC gives;

Answer: They do not; for though they boast of Him in words, yet in deeds they deny Jesus the only deliverer and Savior;3 for one of these two things must be true, that either Jesus is not a complete Savior or that they, who by a true faith receive this Savior, must find all things in Him necessary to their salvation.4

HC 30 explicitly teaches that “they do not believe in Jesus the only Savior, who seek their salvation and welfare in saints, in themselves, or anywhere else?

Succinctly put, such people must be born again. Succinctly put, the Jesus such people believe in is not the Jesus of the Bible. Succinctly put, even though these people doubtless affirm the Apostles creed even reciting it, they are not in Christ. They are investing a different meaning into the words of the AC; “And in Jesus Christ His only son.” HC 30 is teaching that despite how much the word “Jesus” is on their lips, their deeds of praying to the saints denies the Jesus of the Bible. Here the HC is teaching that if we try to add anything to the finished work of Jesus Christ for our salvation, we have taken to ourselves a Jesus who is no Jesus.

We should add here this also casts off all those who believe in Libertarian free will. All those who believe that the death of Jesus for us must be combined with our “dead in sin will” to choose Christ are outside of Christ. This is so because when it is taught that our “dead in sin will” must choose Christ then we have a doctrine of Christ plus our Libertarian free will choosing Christ. This is a seeking of salvation in themselves.

Because Jesus is our only Savior and Deliverer, His people must be content with His alone provided salvation. Jesus alone will save or He will not save at all.

3 1 Cor. 1:13, 31, Is Christ divided? was Paul crucified for you? or were ye baptized in the name of Paul? That, according as it is written, He that glorieth, let him glory in the Lord.

Gal. 5:4, Christ is become of no effect unto you, whosoever of you are justified by the law; ye are fallen from grace.

Roman Catholics and Arminians alike cannot glory in the Lord alone. They must glory in the Lord plus the saints, or they must glory in the Lord plus themselves as it was their will in choosing Jesus and not Jesus alone. This Jesus plus their decision contrasts them from those who Jesus also died for that didn’t choose Jesus.

Again, the Jesus of the Bible is the alone savior or we are not saved. This is what HC 30 is insisting upon;

for one of these two things must be true, that either Jesus is not a complete Savior or that they, who by a true faith receive this Savior, must find all things in Him necessary to their salvation.4

We see with this answer and question the centrality of a very particularly defined Jesus. It is important to note that there are as many Jesus’ as there are various expressions of Christianity but only the paedo covenant Reformed faith gives one the Jesus of the Bible who can alone save. We must find in that Biblical Jesus all things necessary to our salvation. Christ alone is necessary and sufficient to being saved. There is no other Jesus under heaven who alone can save but the Jesus sat forth in the Reformed Creeds and Confessions.

“Nor is there salvation in any other, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved.” Acts 4:12

who (Jesus) being the brightness of His (the Father’s) glory and the express image of His person, and upholding all things by the word of His power, when He had by Himself purged our sins, sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high… Hebrews 1:1-3

who (Jesus) does not need daily, as those high priests, to offer up sacrifices, first for His own sins and then for the people’s, for this He did once for all when He offered up Himself. ” Hebrews 7:2

Friends of Rightly Ordered Loves = Pariah / Friends of Disordered Loves = Defenders of the Faith

So… let me get this straight;

And please correct me where I’m wrong because it is kind of murky.
John Little Bradley and Robert Alistair and Mrs. Alistair (Annie Sue) — three participants who were instrumental in the new Dreyfuss affair are, through their relationship with the organization MereOrthodoxy,  supporters of and close friends with one former Queen of Spain –who by the way is or was from the island of Lesbo, and who wrote at least one fiction book describing lesbian, er, umm…. joint intimacy.

A blurb marketing the former Queen of Spain’s book;

Louise has nothing. Lavinia has everything. After a chance encounter, the two spiral into an intimate, intense, and possibly toxic friendship. A Talented Mr. Ripley for the digital age, this seductive story takes a classic tale of obsession and makes it irresistibly new.

And here are a couple reviews of the same book.

“Diabolical…A wicked original …

—Janet Maslin, The New York Times 

“Sharp as a shard of broken mirror…a formidable burlesque by  the former Queen of Spain ….
New York Times Book Review

So John, Robert and Anne Sue, defenders of Christendom against the interloping presence of a dreaded “Kinist” are themselves supporters of and friends with a current or former citizen of the island of Lesbo — working together with a woman who has written rather descriptive books about the intimacy of two naked women getting it on together?

Also, it seems that Robert Alistair (one of the Dreyfuss affair conspirators) cohosts Mere Fidelity with 3 other chaps, including one . It seems that Lee Matthews is on the advisory committee for Revoice…a sodomite organization to help same sex attracted people feel welcome in the church.

Is all this right … is that the reality?

Cuz, I want to make sure and get this right. I don’t want to be guilty of any wild accusations. If this chronicling of hypocrisy on the part of John Little Bradley and team Alistair is false I want to find out so I can stop this from spreading.

However, we can remain glad that Robert Allistair, John Little Bradley, and company rid our modern day Dreyfuss from the visible church even if their intimate associations with dysfunctional people makes them questionable members of the visible church.