Christopher Isherwood & Disordered Affection

Christopher Isherwood was specific in his memoir about the need to have sex outside his class (with boys) and found it even more exciting when he was unable to speak the language of the person he had sex with.

Once learning German Isherwood reported that “it was a little saddening, because the collapse of the language barrier had buried the image of the magic German boy.”

E. Michael Jones
“Monsters from the Id.”

This quote reveals that which so often motivates sexual perversion. In God’s design, the radical personality differences between male and female (in general) and between two individuals (in particular) is simply not strange enough to satisfy a pervert. Rushdoony has a statement where he says that physicians were reporting weirder and weirder levels of sexual freaks as the person resorts to new methods of arousal. In Isherwood’s case, he cites not only same sex attraction, and not only the overleaping of economic class, but he also got a thrill out of going across language barriers in his conquests. The same idea is back of all sin: God is not truly God; the sinner instead is truly God and he will leap across boundaries with impunity. The language fetish is also revealing in what he says about being disappointed to learn German. Ordered knowledge is too, well, orderly. The pervert prefers the thrill of disorder and chaos and wants it to pervade his sexual romps as far as possible.

Hat Tip — Habakkuk Mucklewrath for the analysis

Homosexuality as Vampirism … An E. Michael Jones Quote

“Since sex for the homosexual is essentially an attempt to appropriate the masculinity that he feels lacking in himself from someone who seems to embody it, sex with girls has no purpose, since girls do not have what he lacks. Once it gets construed in this way, sex becomes essentially a vampiric act, It is either sucking the desired object to obtain its male essence, or being sucked for the same purpose. Isherwood makes this vampiric character clear but in a slightly veiled manner when he talks about Bubi, the first object of his homosexual attentions in Berlin: ‘Christopher wanted to keep Bubi all to himself forever, to posses him utterly, and he knew that this was impossible and absurd. If he had been a savage, he might have solved the problem by eating Bubi — for magical, not gastronomic reasons.’

Again, Isherwood refers to magic, this time to a magic form of cannibalism that will allow him to ‘keep Bubi all to himself forever, to possess him utterly.’ In other words, to appropriate forever from Bubi what Isherwood lacks in himself. Cannibalism, as the case of Jeffrey Dahmer showed, is nothing more than an extreme form of homosexuality. Both actions involved a ‘magical’ ingestion of the desired characteristics of the other. In this regard, cannibalism is but one term in a series of psychic linkages that radiate out from the vampire, the prime representative of Wiemar culture. With the breakdown of the family, the son does not get the needed affirmation of his own masculinity from the father. As a result, sex becomes an attempt to alleviate this male deficit. It becomes an exercise in feeding on another person which gets fantasized sometimes as cannibalism but more often than not as a sucking off of the liquid essence from the desired object in the act of fellatio or in the symbolic act of vampirism. (Hirschfield, by the way, in his magnum opus listing all the sexual variants, lists vampirism as one and cites a specific case of a man who could not reach orgasm without first ingesting the blood of his spouse. The Marquis de Sade lists a similar instance in Justine.)

In either case the point of the act is to assuage the hunger-like feeling that is the physical manifestation of the deficit nature of homosexuality but also of lust. As one of Nicolosi’s clients explains about his sexual involvement with a male he admired: ‘That power and control — I’ve always wanted to draw off that, to be so together.’

Like a vampire, the homosexual ‘draws off’ that power by sucking, by draining the desired object of its life force and absorbing into himself in some ritualistic ‘magical’ banquet. Of course, this magic never works; in fact it only exacerbates the loneliness and inadequacy which drove the homosexual to this form of sexual activity in the first place, and so what arises in place of the ‘magic’ is a compulsive, addiction-like vicious circle, in which the homosexual tries to compensate for a sense of masculine inadequacy by engaging in homosexual activity, which, once it is over, only makes the inadequacy seem even worse.”

E. Michael Jones
Monsters from the Id — pg. 192-193

Hart’s Hysteria

Isn’t monogamy Christian? That’s what gays have lurched into. I’m sure they will follow heteros in recognizing the weaknesses of fidelity to marital vows.

Darryl Hart
R2K advocate
Adjunct Professor Westminster Seminary California

1.) Ask yourself if in the context of a biblical definition of marriage is it even possible to talk about monogamy as existing between two men or two women? In the context of a biblical definition of marriage only a man and woman as married can be monogamous.

2.) It requires a willful torpidity to think that what sodomites really want (were it even possible) is monogamy and to think that, except in a very small percentile there is any desire for fidelity.

Sex in America: A Definitive Survey, by authors Michael, Gagnon, Laumann, and Kolata, cites a study of homosexual male couples conducted by gay researchers.

The couples who participated had been together between 1 and 37 years.

Findings were as follows:

  • 100% (all) of the couples experienced infidelity in their relationship within the first 5 years.
  • Couples who remained together past the 10-year mark were able to do so only by accepting the painful reality of infidelity in their relationship
  • More than 85 percent of the couples reported that their greatest relationship problems center on issues related to outside relationships.

 

Darryl’s R2K Confusion On Display

“Two steps forward (Christian norms now govern same-sex marriage), one step backwards (Christians may still object to Christian norms governing same-sex marriages).,,,

But the weeping and gnashing of teeth about gay marriage has yet to acknowledge that gays (whether they know it or not) want to be like Christians. That’s one way of reading this. Why is that so much of a threat to Christian morality?”

D.G. Hart, — 7/1/15
Westminster Seminary California adjunct professor
Torchbearer for R2K

1.) I’m sure sodomites will be amazed to learn from Darryl that they aspire to “be like Christians.”  The plan to wed homos to each other is all in keeping with their unconscious desire to emulate Christians and through them Christ. Gottcha. By simply going through the ceremony, they will be moving in the right direction towards Christ. Further, we know that sodomites want to be like Christians by embracing marriage because, after all, in sodomite marriage sodomites are loving their husbands as Christ loved the Church.  Er, No. Wait. Rather it is that husbands are submitting to their husbands as the Church submits to Christ. Wait … that’s not right either.

Never mind.

2.) According to Darryl’s R2K “theology” there is no such thing as “Christian Marriage,” so I’m not sure why Darryl would say that “gays (whether they know it or not) want to be like Christians.” According to Darryl it is not possible to want to be like Christians when it comes to marriage because there is no such thing as “Christian marriage.” How can one desire to be like someone (a Christian) in something (Christian marriage) that doesn’t exist?

3.) Also Darryl, quite contrary to all his R2K theology, is telling us that there is such a thing as “Christian morality” in the common realm. And yet R2K has relentlessly taught that morality in the common realm is common and not Christian. According to R2K nothing in the common realm counts as particularly “Christian morality.”

4.) Here Darryl speaks of Christian norms in the common realm and yet R2K has relentlessly told us that, when in comes to the common realm, what norms the norms of the common realm is not Christianity. So then how can Darryl speak of “Christian norms” when speaking of matters in the common realm?

It’s not like I need to demonstrate it again but here we have before us the utter confusion that R2K and the hyphenated life offers. There is no rhyme or reason to R2K. It is completely random and chaotic.

McAtee contra Horton on Crying and Laughing Article

At this link,

http://www.whitehorseinn.org/blog/entry/blog/2015/07/03/i-ll-cry-on-saturday-but-i-ll-laugh-on-sunday

We once again see the absolute absurdity that is R2K in action.

“There seemed to be a moment where we could debate the value of marriage from radically different worldviews and yet remain committed to the common good.”

Michael Horton

Bret responds,

Do you really want to send your son to a Seminary where one of the leading professors actually thinks that people with radically different worldviews can agree on the common good?

If they can agree on the common good then they don’t have radically different worldviews. After all, it is one’s worldview that dictates what the common good is defined as and if you have two radically different worldviews you are, ipso facto, going to have two radically different definitions of the common good.

Obviously, one of the two parties with a “radically different worldview” needs to surrender his radically different worldview in order to come to agreement on the common good. Dr. Michael Horton did just that some time ago with his offer of going along with “domestic partnerships for the protection of legal and economic security”.

Horton continues,

“On Saturday, we were lamenting the decision. But then this response came back from one friend, who happens to be a U. S. Senator: “Yes, it’s a big disappointment, but tomorrow’s Sunday, Christ is risen, and ‘trust not in princes.’

I’ll cry on Saturday, but I’ll laugh on Sunday.”

Bret responds,

Trust not in princes? How about we add “Trust not in Seminary Professors or “Christian” Senators”?

So … on Saturday Christ is not risen so we must lament but on Sunday Christ is risen so we can laugh?

Horton is R2K and this is just one more example of the absolutely asinine reasoning that emanates from R2K wisemen. When we live in common time we lament but when we live in sacred time (Sabbath) we laugh. We are living and doing the bifurcated rumba.

In another snippet Horton opines,

“… more tragic is the fact that mainline Protestantism has been at the forefront of the movement for same-sex marriage and, although a majority of evangelicals still disapprove, the tide is turning. “

Bret responds,

Horton styles it “tragic” what mainline Protestantism has done, and yet according to Horton’s own deeply flawed “theology”  R2K churches share in the mainline Protestantisms culpability in all this because R2K Churches, as they have been consistent with their own theology did not, have not, and do not resist as Churches, this wickedness about which Horton laments on Saturdays. How can Horton point a finger at the Mainlines when his own theology has repeatedly insisted that the Mainlines should not be resisted, overturned, or challenged by R2K Churches since the Church as Church has nothing to do with those issues?

Horton continues,

Hearts have changed. Part of that is due to the fact that we all are friends with LBGT neighbors who are decent people.

Bret

I know someone who likes to bed his dairy cows. He is a decent person also.

Has the word “decent” so devolved that we can consider someone decent as long as they bring a meal when someone is ill and they keep their lawn up nicely, even though they are involved in what God calls an abomination? I’ve read that Stalin was a charming and wonderful host for State dinners … really quite a decent chap.

Horton,

In any case, the culture war has been lost. Now what?

Bret,

Thanks, in no small part, to Horton’s own R2K retreat-ism and constant bleating for 20 years about how the culture war was lost.  Horton has been aiding and abetting the loss of the culture war by saying things like,

“Although a contractual relationship denies God’s will for human dignity, I could affirm domestic partnerships as a way of protecting people’s legal and economic security.”

Can anyone tell me the difference between a state-licensed marriage and a civil union?  There is none and these types of “solutions” that Mike offers is one reason why reason why Mike can say the culture war has been lost. Here we see that surrender is easy. Even a prominent R2K professor can do it without much practice.

Horton wants to draw a sharp dichotomy between our culture as battlefield and our culture as mission field. I would insist that is a false dichotomy since every culture that a Christian is engaged with is simultaneously battle field and mission field. Does Horton really believe that mission fields are not battle fields? The Apostle Paul would have found such a notion at best naive and at worst just plain stupid.