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.


What Being Pro Second Amendment Means

“What country can preserve it’s liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is it’s natural manure.”

Thomas Jefferson
In a 1787 letter to William Stephens Smith

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Second Amendment

“Though it is an unpopular opinion among the majority of gun owners the 2A is about killing people.  It’s about assaulting and destroying people, entities, and governments in a morally justified manner.

People that shy away from the term “assault weapon” aren’t doing the 2nd Amendment any favors. Arguing about terminology is something that started over half-a-century ago with the NRA. Assaulting -is- the entire point of the 2A. It’s not a hunting rifle, it’s not a sporting rifle, or a target rifle. It’s a tool meant for the justified killing of humans. Everything else is a secondary application. Stating anything else shifts the Overton Window away from the crux of the issue, which is stacking bodies when a government has gone rogue and is operating outside of its Constitutional boundaries.

Arguing that “AR stands for Armalite” is a win for the opposition. Quibbling about term “assault” in the Assault Weapons Ban bills is a win for the opposition. When someone says; “AR15’s need to be banned because they’re designed to kill people efficiently” don’t cuck yourself by arguing about feral hogs or shooting competitions. Respond with “yes. that’s the point.”

THAT is the difference between someone saying they’re Pro-gun and someone saying they’re Pro-2a. You can be Pro-gun and be fine with Red Flag Laws, AWBs, and Conceal Carry Permits. Those kind of people can also say, “I’m Pro-Gun! I hunt too, but we need common sense gun laws.” How many times have you heard that? Being Pro-2A has nothing to do with hunting or sporting, it’s about your God-given, inalienable, right to protect yourself, your family, your property, and your country from enemies both foreign and domestic with up to, and including, justifiable homicide with the best tools available. You have that right from birth, no matter where on Earth you’re born.

The 2A is just a piece of paper that recognizes and protects that right. All of that being said, rights aren’t devoid of responsibility. It’s more than “I believe in the 2A so I should own machine guns to magdump into trash!!” It doesn’t end with ownership of weapons, that’s just the start. You need to be training with them regularly, purposefully, and deliberately. To the pro-2A person, Guns aren’t toys, they’re life-ending tools to be taken seriously.

You need to find members of your local community that take it as seriously as you do, and train with those people regularly. If you can’t find anyone like that, you need to educate those around you and bring them to that level. It’s more than just owning the gun, It’s becoming a well-rounded minuteman. That’s what being pro2A means.”

Joshua Steinhauser
Son-in-Law

Advent Poetry

St. Nicholas; our Holy man of Advent
Patron of those afflicted with ill-temper
Anabaptist pacifism was not his bent

As expressed in his conciliar distemper

Arius denied Christ was God of God
Denied the deity of our Lord
There was no room for such a fraud

Thus Arius was floored

This kind of saintly bulldog behavior
Is no longer considered in good taste
Fisticuffs to defend our glorious savior
Is shocking to our clerical panty-waists

Yet, a time and season for all zeals
A time to strike and not to reason
When Orthodoxy with Heresy deals
Fell blows cannot be counted treason

For who can convince a rebel mind
By citing a multitude of verses?
Nicholas knew the dumb and blind
Are better won with pugilistic curses

Dennis Prager Gives God Ultimatum

If Holocaust Deniers Don’t Go to Hell, There Is No God

Tuesday, Dennis Prager decided to instruct God telling Him that if God doesn’t send “Holocaust Deniers” to Hell then He (God) does not exist.

It was reported that God was mulling His options given Prager’s threat.

However, allow me for a moment, if you please, to speak as God’s consigliere on this matter.

1.) As salvation is a matter of by grace alone, through faith alone, in Christ alone, I’m pretty sure that someone who does not agree on the historical particulars regarding the “Holocaust” as long as they trust in Christ alone can have their name written in the Lamb’s book of life.

2.) Prager does not tell us just exactly what a “Holocaust Denier” is. Is a “Holocaust Denier” someone who questions the final magic number of six million? (Keep in mind that throughout the early 20th century before WW II the six million number was bandied about repeatedly in the media in terms of the predicted outcome of the sundry terrors the Jews were facing.) What if someone said… “I think the number is more likely 4 million?” — Would that make them a “Holocaust Denier” who has to go to hell, lest God not exist?

3.) Can we be careful about calling this historical event “The Holocaust?”

The Holocaust and The Holocaust Offering

Matthew 24, The Tribulation & the Holocaust

4.)  Prager writes, “in the pantheon of evils, among the worst is Holocaust denial.”

Honestly, this is over-wrought to an extreme. I can think of tons of things are are worst than Holocaust Denial. For example, the men who were attacked by Israel on the USS Liberty might think that evil attack is greater in the pantheon of evil than Holocaust denial. The people who were bilked out of their life savings by Sam Bankman-Fried and Bernie Madoff may think those grifters are higher up in the pantheon of evils than Holocaust denial. Even the evil of Jonathan Pollard’s spying might be higher up in the pantheon of evils than Holocaust denial.

5.) I would quite agree with Prager in his column that anyone who denies that many Jews suffered during WW II would be vile. I would also quite agree that anyone who denies that many Christians suffered during WW II would be vile. I would also ask for everyone to realize that one reason War is to be avoided if at all possible is because in wars people suffer.

6.) Prager then quotes Eisenhower and Patton about the horror of the camps. Nobody doubts that the camps were horrific. Just as the Allied camps were horrific as described in the book  by James Bacque; “Other Losses.” War is horrific. What people do doubt at some level is the reason behind the horrors that Ike and Patton witnessed. Keep in mind that when a combatant enemy as a nation is suffering severe depredations that it is obvious that those who will suffer the most are camps filled with those deemed the enemy.

7.) Much of what Prager asserts cannot be and has never been substantiated as beyond question. Let’s keep in mind that the narrative for decades insisted that the Nazis were responsible for the Katyn Forrest massacre and yet finally one day the lie of that was overturned. Why is it beyond the pale to think that there will be aspects of the “Holocaust” narrative that will one day be seen to be as false as we now know the Katyn Forrest lie was? Keep in mind that much of the “evidence” for the “Holocaust” comes to us from the Communists. These are hardly reputable people.

8.) Prager asks; If the Holocaust never happened, why would Germany maintain that it did?

He’s not really serious here is he? One only has to look at the way David Irving has been treated or look at the way Ernst Zundel was treated or look at the way Ursula Haverbeck has been treated and one knows the answer to that question.

9.) Can you name one other historical event that will result in prison time if you do not agree with the official narrative? Just one? Can one go to jail for denying the Holodomor in any country? Can one go to jail for denying the slaughter of the Armenians by the Turks in any country?

10.) Because #9 is true, I refuse Prager’s conclusion that it is antisemitism to question the particulars surrounding what we call “the Holocaust.”

11.) Again, just to be clear. I don’t deny that the Jewish people suffered greatly during WW II. I don’t deny that millions were killed. However, if Auschwitz in the early 90’s could revise their camp death totals down by over two million I don’t know why it is not possible that some day likewise total numbers of Jewish deaths might not be revised downward as a result of further historical investigation.

https://www.chicagotribune.com/news/ct-xpm-1992-05-07-9202100662-story.html

Historical investigation is not antisemitism and neither is it a “slap in the face of the soldiers who fought in WW II,” quite to the contrary of Prager’s claim.