Denise McCallister has been covered on this blog before, when she put an article on the Federalist worrying that #MeToo was destroying trust between women and sexy men.

https://gunnerq.androsphere.net/2017/12/19/the-federalist-is-the-feminist/

Now she has reportedly been getting credible death threats over an abortion tweet. One should always be skeptical about hysterical women these days but when I read the tweet, I can see why there would have been a massive reaction.

‘Threats of Rape and Strangling’ Force D.C. McAllister Into Hiding After Anti-Abortion Tweet

By Tyler O’Neil, 11 September 2018

https://pjmedia.com/trending/threats-of-rape-and-strangling-force-d-c-mcallister-into-hiding-after-anti-abortion-tweet/

Last week, PJ Media contributor and Fox News guest Denise McAllister sent out a powerful tweet denouncing the abortion movement. Little did she know, days later she would be in hiding, scared for her life. When she went public about receiving death and rape threats, pro-abortion Twitter users championed the threats against her.

“At the root of [abortion] hysteria is women’s unhinged desire for irresponsible sex. Sex is their god. Abortion is their sacrament,” McAllister tweeted. “It.s abhorrent as women have flung themselves from the heights of being the world’s civilizing force to the muck and mire of dehumanizing depravity.”

Denise stepped on the Third Rail of Abortion: She blamed women for seeking abortions.

Pro-abortionists blame men for unwanted pregnancy or sometimes, nobody at all. These things happen, like the common cold, you see. Anti-abortionists blame the doctors and supporters. But neither dares blame the person demanding and paying for the abortion: the woman.

Look at the Federal Unborn Victims of Violence Act of 2004 in USA, which specifically exempts abortion from being considered a form of fetal homicide:

Title 18, Section 1841, partial:

(a) (1) Whoever engages in conduct that violates any of the provisions of law listed in subsection (b) and thereby causes the death of, or bodily injury (as defined in section 1365) to, a child, who is in utero at the time the conduct takes place, is guilty of a separate offense under this section.

(2) (A) Except as otherwise provided in this paragraph, the punishment for that separate offense is the same as the punishment provided under Federal law for that conduct had that injury or death occurred to the unborn child’s mother.

Okay, an unborn child has the same legal status as his mother. Reasonable.

(B) An offense under this section does not require proof that.

(i) the person engaging in the conduct had knowledge or should have had knowledge that the victim of the underlying offense was pregnant; or

(ii) the defendant intended to cause the death of, or bodily injury to, the unborn child.

It doesn’t matter whether the (male) perpetrator even knows the unborn child exists. A blatant violation of due process, the legal equivalent of being charged with hit & run for running over an invisible man.

(c) Nothing in this section shall be construed to permit the prosecution.

(1) of any person for conduct relating to an abortion for which the consent of the pregnant woman, or a person authorized by law to act on her behalf, has been obtained or for which such consent is implied by law;

(2) of any person for any medical treatment of the pregnant woman or her unborn child; or

(3) of any woman with respect to her unborn child.

Pussy pass. Mommy gets to murder baby if she wants to but it’s a felony for anybody else to want to. So decree the “good guys” of the abortion issue.

This is the lie of the anti-abortion movement, that women are innocent bystanders/victims of the baby-butcher factory instead of its paying customers. Cross the anti-abortionists on this and they’ll make death threats more vile than the abortionists themselves would dare to make.

Also, take a look at the graphs on this wikipedia page:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion_in_the_United_States_by_state

Parental notification laws, mandatory waiting periods, mandatory counseling laws, mandatory ultrasounds. The underlying assumption here is that women are ignorant of what they’re doing, they’re being rushed by their boyfriends, they aren’t aware of adoption services and so on. Come on, now: women know they’re killing their babies.

No more pussy pass. Any woman who “gets an abortion” is a murderess.

But pointing that out will trigger possibly the largest collection of white knights in the Western World. It’s harsh when a man makes that statement but on a certain level, men are expected to “not understand her situation”. When a woman rejects the narrative, however, she reveals the narrative for what it is: a lie that empowers female rebellion.

Cockroaches hate the light and Denise McCallister got red-pilled the hard way.

 

Stanford University has decided to rename its buildings to ease the hurt butts of militarized students and Amerind grievance-mongers, distancing itself from a piece of California history called Junipero Serra, an influential and amazingly accomplished Catholic priest who was instrumental in founding the famous California Missions as well as the cities of San Francisco and Los Angeles.

Statue of Father Serra at the San Diego Mission.

University to rename Serra House, Serra Mall following two years of controversy

https://www.stanforddaily.com/2018/09/13/university-to-rename-serra-house-serra-mall-following-two-years-of-controversy/

by Brian Contreras, Holden Foreman and Julia Ingram, 17 September 2018

Stanford will rename the freshman dorm, Serra, and Serra House, two campus buildings honoring California mission system founder Father Junipero Serra, who has drawn sharp criticism for his mistreatment of Native Americans.

Serra was admittedly harsh to the locals, being a firm believer in forced conversions, Inquisitor-at-large for New Spain and various other issues a modern Prot like me could nitpick. However, the sort of people who think Serra was evil tend to champion truly wicked men like Che “the Pig” Guevara. It’s an unfunny joke when atheists claim devout Christians are the bad guys; the 20th Century has settled this matchup beyond doubt.

Stanford will also seek to rename Serra Mall, pending the approval of Santa Clara County and the U.S. Postal Service. This would change the University’s official address, which is currently 450 Serra Mall. If approved, Serra Mall will become Jane Stanford Way in honor of the University’s co-founder.

A choice of obvious cultural and historical significance. How did we manage to become a state without the blessed influence of Jane Stanford?

Do those look like crazy eyes to you? She’s not quite bitchface but no photographs I’ve found would disagree with that accusation.

New names for the Serra dorm and the Serra House, an academic building that houses the Clayman Institute for Gender Research, have yet to be determined. According to Brad Hayward, Associate Vice President for University Communications, the University will select the new name for Serra dorm after gathering student input starting this fall.

“We don’t know who we do want the dorms named after but we’re sure Father Serra has got to go. Hey, let’s let the kids make our decisions! We won’t trigger them that way. We don’t want to trigger them.”

Not all landmarks that echo Serra’s name will be re-christened. Serra Street, which stretches from the end of Serra Mall to El Camino Real, will retain its name. The dorm Junipero . named for the juniper tree rather than Serra, despite popular misconceptions . will remain unchanged.

Yeah, sure. The dorm was named after a species of tree, not the guy whose name is on the surrounding buildings and street. I doubt academic freedom can exist in a university willing to lie to itself as a compromise or cost-cutting measure.

The decision was recommended by the Advisory Committee on Renaming Junipero Serra Features, convened by University President Marc Tessier-Lavigne to apply a set of principles surrounding the renaming of campus buildings and landmarks to those honoring Serra. The recommendations have been accepted by Stanford’s Board of Trustees.

I left the link to those principles for the interested. They’re so vague that somebody must have been paid a large fortune to write them.

The decision was recommended by the Advisory Committee on Renaming Junipero Serra Features, convened by University President Marc Tessier-Lavigne to apply a set of principles surrounding the renaming of campus buildings and landmarks to those honoring Serra. The recommendations have been accepted by Stanford’s Board of Trustees.

.We hope that renaming the two Serra houses and Serra Mall will remove a significant hurt to Native Americans, other members of the Stanford community and the larger diverse world that Stanford seeks to embrace,. the committee’s report states. .We also acknowledge that respect for historic continuity with Stanford’s founding reflected in our recommendation to maintain the names of other features named for Spanish missionaries and settlers may continue to cause concern for some..

I found an interesting reason for Junipero Serra to be singled out like this: Serra was canonized by Pope Francis on September 23, 2015, as a part of the pope’s first visit to the United States, the first canonization to take place on American soil, per Wikipedia.

Stanford.s Thursday decision marks a milestone in a multi-year debate that has been fraught with institutional delays and ensuing frustration from those who sought a resolution to the matter.

The Advisory Committee on Renaming Junipero Serra Features is the third committee convened in response to the call to rename Serra. An original committee, tasked in 2016 to resolve the renaming question by then-President John Hennessy, failed to deliver a verdict on the matter after a long stalemate.

In late 2017, institutional efforts to address the renaming controversy accelerated. Tessier-Lavigne announced that he would dissolve that group and convene two new committees; the first would devise principles on renaming to ensure continuity between cases going forward, and the second would apply those principles to Serra’s case.

Mark Tessier-Lavigne is a pedoface. How ironic, for a man unpersoning a virtuous Catholic priest. (Visit pedoface.com for more examples.)

Committee chair and former Stanford Law Dean Paul Brest said that the group’s deliberations, including efforts to perceive the nuances of Serra’s relationship to Stanford history, were thoughtful and constructive.

.It was a very positive and productive process,. he said.

.What came through to all of us . and I speak for all the committee members who were there . was a sense of sincere passion about their felt harms that Native Americans felt from Serra,. Brest said. .There was a tremendous empathy and association of Native American experiences wherever they came from, with each other..

In the meeting, individuals of Native American descent recounted “visceral feelings of harm, trauma, emotional damage, and damage to their mental health,. as a result of buildings honoring Serra, according to the report.

Utter bullshit. Some dude who lived in the 1700s did not do harm to anybody alive today. Do “Native Americans” think the world would have left them alone in North America, howling at the moon in their ignorant, Stone-Age squalor? We whites came along and gave the Amerinds a gold-plated invitation to be part of the greatest nation in human history and these chuckleheads decide to be ingrates. If not us, then probably the Chinese or Japanese would have ethnic-cleansed them into oblivion.

Native Americans murdered some of my settler ancestors. Should I allow myself to have “visceral feelings of harm” about that? It was way more recent than Catholic California. Maybe I will one day, if we’re going to have an “I get to hurt you today because other peoples’ ancestors did my ancestors a bad turn” pissing contest.

According to the report, Catholic community members expressed their hope that the committee would not “attack evangelism” as an enterprise.

Catholic stakeholders also said the committee should not attribute all problematic components of the mission system to Serra, as some factors were beyond his individual knowledge and power.

.The mission system changed after his death, and the mission system as a whole is more than just Serra,. Catholic Students Association former president Katie Hufker .18 told The Daily last year.

The committee summarized the Catholic community’s viewpoint with the statement of one individual, who said they would be “disappointed but not angry,. if features honoring Serra were renamed.

As a result, the committee determined that “the harms avoided by renaming outweigh the harms of renaming,. and thus, renaming is “not disrespectful,. according to the report.

The Catholics cucked and as a reward, Junipero Serra wasn’t completely unpersoned.

History of the debate

The renaming effort began when the Associated Students of Stanford University (ASSU) Senate passed a resolution asking the University to consider renaming buildings honoring Serra in February 2016. Specifically, the resolution called for the renaming of four locations: the Serra and Junipero dorms, the Serra House and the University’s address.

The original ASSU Senate bill said that “recognition [of Serra] illustrates the dismissal, indifference and subsequent erasure of indigenous voices in the institution and tacitly celebrates the atrocities visited upon Native communities of old..

.Father Serra’s actions led to the massacre of thousands of people and the disappearance of languages and cultures, which is a net negative,. said former ASSU Vice President Brandon Hill .16 while discussing the bill. .We should shift the burden from us . justifying why he needs to go to, why is it imperative that he needs to be celebrated?.

Five months after Serra’s canonization, one month into the academic semester. The timing is right for this being prompted by Serra’s canonization.

Stanford has failed as a university by not answering Brandon’s idiotically simple question. We remember the great names and deeds of the past because they are great. Significant. The ancients are no different from us. How they faced the same problems that we do today is incredibly valuable, both the “do this” lessons and the “don’t do that”. Remembering them is not endorsing them. I can champion the memory and influence of Junipero Serra without being either Catholic, a Spaniard or a militant Inquisitor. Brandon Hill and his fellow children–I cannot call then students, they were not at university to learn–are so drenched in grievance-mongering and Convergence that they would erase the past in favor of the all-consuming Present. They think history has nothing to teach them. They think so long as there’s a book somewhere with this stuff written down, that they can safely forget the book’s title.

They are cultural arsonists, torching history because they like pretty flames.

Such an attitude is incapable of learning beyond the level of training a chimp to ride a bicycle. Brandon Hill should have been expelled and the Amerind whiners should have been laughed (and escorted) off the campus with their demands stuffed up their kiesters.

But no, modern faculty and staff live in fear of their own students.

 

Vox Day clued me in to a good summary of Tradcon theology in the form of an online petition. He was cautiously optimistic. (http://voxday.blogspot.com/2018/09/statement-on-social-justice.html). Me, I see only proof that mercy is wasted on people who make bank off being wrong about Christ. The following “Statement on Social Justice & the Gospel” petition is signed by a number of notorious Tradcons including John MacArthur, Voddie Beauchamp, Jeremy Vuolo and Douglas Wilson.

…And Joseph Farah of WND.com, unfortunately. He’s one of the few journalists I have respect for. I hope that signing this was a one-time derp on his part.

This is kinda long. You can skip to “Complementarianism” for the good stuff.

https://statementonsocialjustice.com/

Introduction

In view of questionable sociological, psychological, and political theories presently permeating our culture and making inroads into Christ’s church, we wish to clarify certain key Christian doctrines and ethical principles prescribed in God’s Word. Clarity on these issues will fortify believers and churches to withstand an onslaught of dangerous and false teachings that threaten the gospel, misrepresent Scripture, and lead people away from the grace of God in Jesus Christ.

Specifically, we are deeply concerned that values borrowed from secular culture are currently undermining Scripture in the areas of race and ethnicity, manhood and womanhood, and human sexuality.

Watch, everybody! These people are so concerned about worldly influences in Christendom that they’re going to risk their 501c3 tax-exempt status to call them out!

Scripture

WE AFFIRM that the Bible is God’s Word, breathed out by him. It is inerrant, infallible, and the final authority for determining what is true (what we must believe) and what is right (how we must live). All truth claims and ethical standards must be tested by God’s final Word, which is Scripture alone.

They say this first to give themselves the illusion of legitimacy. As we’ll soon see (and already know), Tradcons are pathological liars who love to twist Scripture to accommodate the world’s convenience.

WE DENY that Christian belief, character, or conduct can be dictated by any other authority, and we deny that the postmodern ideologies derived from intersectionality, radical feminism, and critical race theory are consistent with biblical teaching. We further deny that competency to teach on any biblical issue comes from any qualification for spiritual people other than clear understanding and simple communication of what is revealed in Scripture.

So says the Credentialed, Professional Priesthood. These guys claim to be Protestants but they act Catholic in their utter refusal to give laymen a voice in the church. They might as well bury John MacArthur with his pulpit as pry it out of his deathgrip.

But Catholics are wise enough to provide alternative quality control when barring laymen from publicly critiquing priests. Closed priesthoods for independent churches is the worst of both worlds.

Imago Dei

WE AFFIRM that God created every person equally in his own image. As divine image-bearers, all people have inestimable value and dignity before God and deserve honor, respect and protection. Everyone has been created by God and for God.

This is the standard foundation that Tradcons build their lies upon, that because God shows no favoritism we’re all equally intelligent, wise, skilled and capable. Obviously false. We also do not deserve honor, respect or protection. Being made in God’s image gives us value despite that unworthiness. Neither has everyone been created for God. He has made many people to be His enemies… the devil first among them, their spiritual father.

WE DENY that God-given roles, socioeconomic status, ethnicity, religion, sex or physical condition or any other property of a person either negates or contributes to that individual’s worth as an image-bearer of God.

So begins the “women are people, too” conflation with “women are men, too”. God made women inferior to men in order to demonstrate humanity’s need for Him. Women are not worthy of a husband. Humans are not worthy of Christ. God likes us despite our unworthiness and He expects a similar attitude from the fathers and husbands who relate with women.

Justice

WE AFFIRM that since he is holy, righteous, and just, God requires those who bear his image to live justly in the world. This includes showing appropriate respect to every person and giving to each one what he or she is due. We affirm that societies must establish laws to correct injustices that have been imposed through cultural prejudice.

I thought the signers of this statement were OPPOSING Social Justice??? Because that boldface is almost the exact definition of Convergence.

I’m suddenly tempted to stop by random churches to use their bathrooms and see if they’re gender-fluid, to correct the ancient cultural prejudices of men peeing while standing.

WE DENY that true justice can be culturally defined or that standards of justice that are merely socially constructed can be imposed with the same authority as those that are derived from Scripture. We further deny that Christians can live justly in the world under any principles other than the biblical standard of righteousness. Relativism, socially-constructed standards of truth or morality, and notions of virtue and vice that are constantly in flux cannot result in authentic justice.

Morons. God’s Will cannot be applied directly. “Put the murderer to death” is God’s will for all societies but the method of determining guilt, form of execution and so on is undefined. The ideal situation, from the Prot perspective, is that government is a secular implementation of Christian principles. That means culture and social constructs play a significant, natural part in justice.

What they’re doing here is undermining race and cultural distinctions as unimportant, since they’re merely “socially constructed”. This notion of universality is critical to forming the world gov’t destined to be led by Satan. If ten nations have ten different yet legitimate ways to be holy & just than they cannot have a unified government. No, first all nations must be reduced to the same grey good so that one-size-fits-one-size gov’t becomes possible.

“Social constructs”, heh. It’s a bad sign when one uses the Liar’s language unironically.

God.s Law

WE AFFIRM that God’s law, as summarized in the ten commandments, more succinctly summarized in the two great commandments, and manifested in Jesus Christ, is the only standard of unchanging righteousness. Violation of that law is what constitutes sin.

WE DENY that any obligation that does not arise from God’s commandments can be legitimately imposed on Christians as a prescription for righteous living. We further deny the legitimacy of any charge of sin or call to repentance that does not arise from a violation of God’s commandments.

Consider public nudity. God never directly forbade it (although that was His very first comment post-Fall) and clothing interferes with some definitions of “loving your neighbor” so Tradcons should have no trouble with fat, naked rednecks in their pews. Of course, that’s sexually unacceptable and inconsistent with God’s will… but what is appropriate clothing? It isn’t defined in the Ten Commandments or by the word “modesty”. Pacific Islanders with bare boobs were chaste by their standards; corsets didn’t slow down the whores of Victorian England. My kilt is not a skirt.

See? Morally acceptable clothing is NECESSARILY culturally dependent.

Furthermore, the idea that refusing to obey extra-Biblical laws cannot be sin is directly refuted by Paul in his writings on the morality of food. 1 Corinthians 8:9-13: “Be careful, however, that the exercise of your rights does not become a stumbling block to the weak. For if someone with a weak conscience sees you, with all your knowledge, eating in an idol’s temple, won’t that person be emboldened to eat what is sacrificed to idols? So this weak brother or sister, for whom Christ died, is destroyed by your knowledge. When you sin against them in this way and wound their weak conscience, you sin against Christ. Therefore, if what I eat causes my brother or sister to fall into sin, I will never eat meat again, so that I will not cause them to fall.”

Sin

WE AFFIRM that all people are connected to Adam both naturally and federally. Therefore, because of original sin everyone is born under the curse of God’s law and all break his commandments through sin. There is no difference in the condition of sinners due to age, ethnicity, or sex. All are depraved in all their faculties and all stand condemned before God’s law. All human relationships, systems, and institutions have been affected by sin.

Ooh! Ooh! They mentioned Original Sin! Well, no, only its consequences. Nothing about Eve disobeying God & Adam followed by Adam following Eve’s lead.

“Both naturally and federally”? I’ve not heard it put that way before.

WE DENY that, other than the previously stated connection to Adam, any person is morally culpable for another person’s sin. Although families, groups, and nations can sin collectively, and cultures can be predisposed to particular sins, subsequent generations share the collective guilt of their ancestors only if they approve and embrace (or attempt to justify) those sins. Before God each person must repent and confess his or her own sins in order to receive forgiveness. We further deny that one’s ethnicity establishes any necessary connection to any particular sin.

They wouldn’t be Tradcons if they didn’t flagrantly contradict themselves on occasion. You’re only responsible for your own sin, ever, except that some sins are collective, and some sins are society’s culture’s fault, and you’re guilty of other people’s sins if you approve of them and you inherited sin from Adam. But the rest is yours alone!

It’s possible to approve of other peoples’ sins without being guilty of them. I approve of porn. God does not. I accept God’s standard as the mandatory ideal but having lived through a young adulthood in which sex was weaponized as a tool of slavery & threatpoint against men, I personally do not fault men for resorting to porn as the only plausible solution to the death of licit sexual opportunities.

God will fault them but I will not. Especially the unbelievers who don’t have that standard to endure anyway. Does this make me guilty of their porn usage? No.

Gospel

WE AFFIRM that the gospel is the divinely-revealed message concerning the person and work of Jesus Christ.especially his virgin birth, righteous life, substitutionary sacrifice, atoning death, and bodily resurrection.revealing who he is and what he has done with the promise that he will save anyone and everyone who turns from sin by trusting him as Lord.

That’s the Gospel until the last bit: “who turns from sin by trusting him as Lord.” That is heresy. The word they should be using here is repentance. We are not saved by faith alone; the price is repentance, turning against our evil nature and deeds. Trusting Christ to resurrect us is our motivation for doing so, not our method of doing so. “Trusting him as Lord”? Demons can do that.

WE DENY that anything else, whether works to be performed or opinions to be held, can be added to the gospel without perverting it into another gospel. This also means that implications and applications of the gospel, such as the obligation to live justly in the world, though legitimate and important in their own right, are not definitional components of the gospel.

This is why Tradcons don’t like the concept of repentance. They don’t want to accept that people, specifically women, must constantly work to control their evil tendencies. It’s hard to blame husbands for their wives’ misconduct when they have to first check if wifey is being obedient… very rare in Current Year.

Also, because Tradcons are Moralistic Therapeutic Deists. Basically, they use religion as a means to a happy life instead of a path to confronting the dark truth of human rebellion. Boyfriend Jesus wants you to be fulfilled, not hurting! But the Crucified Jesus promises His followers that we will suffer painfully if we follow Him. He died on a Cross so we could be next, not so that we wouldn’t have to.

Salvation

WE AFFIRM that salvation is granted by God’s grace alone received through faith alone in Jesus Christ alone. Every believer is united to Christ, justified before God, and adopted into his family. Thus, in God’s eyes there is no difference in spiritual value or worth among those who are in Christ. Further, all who are united to Christ are also united to one another regardless of age, ethnicity, or sex. All believers are being conformed to the image of Christ. By God’s regenerating and sanctifying grace all believers will be brought to a final glorified, sinless state of perfection in the day of Jesus Christ.

Jesus showed favoritism towards the Jews… still does to this day even though they hate Him. Paul also showed favoritism towards his own people. Will the Tradcons claim these guys were wrong to do that, or is putting one’ people first acceptable, Christlike conduct?

We ARE NOT united with EACH OTHER in Christ. This should be blatantly obvious. Prots and Cats have trouble coexisting for many valid reasons even though we’re both devout. In Scripture, Paul and Barnabas couldn’t get along. Jesus and Peter had some words, too, and how about that Oedipus guy in Corinthians? And that’s before we get to unbelievers.

We’ll get along in Heaven because only then will we be able to get along. Today, we are spiritually blind. Blame either God or Adam but it’s true, as is the adage of the blind leading the blind.

WE DENY that salvation can be received in any other way. We also deny that salvation renders any Christian free from all remaining sin or immune from even grievous sin in this life. We further deny that ethnicity excludes anyone from understanding the gospel, nor does anyone’s ethnic or cultural heritage mitigate or remove the duty to repent and believe.

This is a strawman. Nobody claims Africans can’t be Christians. What we claim is Africans, as a race, can’t thrive in or meaningfully contribute to a First World society. There’s a lot of evidence for that. And it’s for the best if the Chinese keep to China.

The Church

WE AFFIRM that the primary role of the church is to worship God through the preaching of his word, teaching sound doctrine, observing baptism and the Lord’s Supper, refuting those who contradict, equipping the saints, and evangelizing the lost. We affirm that when the primacy of the gospel is maintained that this often has a positive effect on the culture in which various societal ills are mollified. We affirm that, under the lordship of Christ, we are to obey the governing authorities established by God and pray for civil leaders.

WE DENY that political or social activism should be viewed as integral components of the gospel or primary to the mission of the church. Though believers can and should utilize all lawful means that God has providentially established to have some effect on the laws of a society, we deny that these activities are either evidence of saving faith or constitute a central part of the church’s mission given to her by Jesus Christ, her head. We deny that laws or regulations possess any inherent power to change sinful hearts.

Classic cuckservatism. The Church’s role is to go through the motions of worship while doing as it’s told by the Elites? No. The Church’s role is the Salt of the Earth. We fight an eternal war against moral rot. Evildoers in authority are the most notorious source of that rot but the Tradcon refuses to confront society’s leaders as a matter of First Principles. Holding that belief while preaching about Jesus facing the Pharisees is a remarkable feat of self-delusion.

“We deny that laws or regulations possess any inherent power to change sinful hearts.” Translation, only Professional Pastors(tm) are capable of presenting the Gospel. Tradcons have unshakable faith in the power of credentialism, generally not having any other life experience to rely on.

Even broken as it is, I daresay that today’s prison-industrial complex straightens out more human souls than all the signers of this Statement. Tradcons preach the Gospel at people like it’s a magic spell. Just look at their church marquees: Jesus loves you! Jesus died for you! As if that’s going to convict someone of the evil they’ve done half as well as a judge & jury.

“Though believers can and should utilize all lawful means that God has providentially established to have some effect on the laws of a society, we deny that these activities are either evidence of saving faith or constitute a central part of the church’s mission...” Translation: we refuse to violate 501c3 status and that refusal does not make us disobedient to Christ. Speak of the heretic:

Heresy

WE AFFIRM that heresy is a denial of or departure from a doctrine that is essential to the Christian faith. We further affirm that heresy often involves the replacement of key, essential truths with variant concepts, or the elevation of non-essentials to the status of essentials. To embrace heresy is to depart from the faith once delivered to the saints and thus to be on a path toward spiritual destruction. We affirm that the accusation of heresy should be reserved for those departures from Christian truth that destroy the weight-bearing doctrines of the redemptive core of Scripture. We affirm that accusations of heresy should be accompanied with clear evidence of such destructive beliefs.

WE DENY that the charge of heresy can be legitimately brought against every failure to achieve perfect conformity to all that is implied in sincere faith in the gospel.

Boldface mine. No, you false Christians, the accusation of heresy is valid for ALL departures from Scriptural basics. Particularly, you twist God’s teachings on the marital roles of husband and wife with the justification of “forrrr the chillllldren!” That will not deflect God’s wrath from you. Neither will your stubborn insistence on maintaining good relations with the taxman endear you to your Savior. Good intentions count for nothing. If you lie about God or twist His teachings then you will go to Hell even if good came from it.

Sexuality and Marriage

WE AFFIRM that God created mankind male and female and that this divinely determined distinction is good, proper, and to be celebrated. Maleness and femaleness are biologically determined at conception and are not subject to change. The curse of sin results in sinful, disordered affections that manifest in some people as same-sex attraction. Salvation grants sanctifying power to renounce such dishonorable affections as sinful and to mortify them by the Spirit. We further affirm that God’s design for marriage is that one woman and one man live in a one-flesh, covenantal, sexual relationship until separated by death. Those who lack the desire or opportunity for marriage are called to serve God in singleness and chastity. This is as noble a calling as marriage.

E.V.I.L. Say it with me: “evil”. Those who reject sexual dimorphism are evil, not wrong, not “curse of sin manifesting as same-sex attraction”. I can’t give these chuckleheads credit for admitting gender is genetic because they claim salvation will magically fix homosexual tendencies. No need to demand legalization of conversion therapy! God will fix you so I don’t have to!

Conspicuously missing is that fact that Christian marriage is not a marriage of equals. The husband holds total authority. The wife shall submit to him in all things. Remember how this long-winded statement began by saying we’re all equal in Christ? Here’s the reason: the Tradcons want to twist that into equality WITH Christ.

“Those who lack the desire or opportunity for marriage are called to serve God in singleness and chastity. This is as noble a calling as marriage.” Bold words, coming from the very clergy who killed the opportunity for marriage via neglect and raising their daughters to never trust a husband.

WE DENY that human sexuality is a socially constructed concept. We also deny that one’s sex can be fluid. We reject “gay Christian” as a legitimate biblical category. We further deny that any kind of partnership or union can properly be called marriage other than one man and one woman in lifelong covenant together. We further deny that people should be identified as “sexual minorities..which serves as a cultural classification rather than one that honors the image-bearing character of human sexuality as created by God.

Sexual minorities? Is that in reference to women being ordered to submit to husbands or sexual freaks worrying they have inadequate political representation?

Affirming basic biology makes Tradcons as moral as the insane atheist and globalist Jordan Peterson.

Complementarianism

WE AFFIRM that God created mankind both male and female with inherent biological and personal distinctions between them and that these created differences are good, proper, and beautiful. Though there is no difference between men and women before God’s law or as recipients of his saving grace, we affirm that God has designed men and women with distinct traits and to fulfill distinct roles. These differences are most clearly defined in marriage and the church, but are not irrelevant in other spheres of life. In marriage the husband is to lead, love, and safeguard his wife and the wife is to respect and be submissive to her husband in all things lawful. In the church, qualified men alone are to lead as pastors/elders/bishops and preach to and teach the whole congregation. We further affirm that the image of God is expressed most fully and beautifully in human society when men and women walk in obedience to their God-ordained roles and serve according to their God-given gifts.

This must be the part that gave Vox Day hope. It reads like an improvement over the usual complementariam drivel. However, I see red flags.

1. “Biological and personal distinctions” is not sexual distinctions. Men and women are dramatically and systematically different, not just body parts and personal “spiritual gifts”, and these differences extend far beyond God deciding who is in charge of a specific type of relationship.

2. “the husband is to lead, love, and safeguard his wife”? No. No safeguarding. Men treat women as their own bodies. I have frequently put my body in danger, sometimes for work, sometimes pleasure and sometimes necessity. I broke it several times. I am not required by God to treat a wife better than that. No martyrs for Barbie.

3. “the wife is to respect and be submissive to her husband in all things lawful.” Nice addition, fuckwits. All things LAWFUL? That’s still conditional male headship, which is no headship at all. The Biblical command is “obey in all things and call him Master”.

4. “In the church, qualified men alone are to lead as pastors/elders/bishops and preach to and teach the whole congregation.” Qualified men alone? What about priesthood of the believer? There are requirements to be an elder but the only requirement for teaching & preaching is not being a new believer. Again with the deathgrip on the pulpit.

Furthermore, the Biblical requirement is for older women to teach the younger. Not Mister Pastor PhD.

5. “men and women walk in obedience to their God-ordained roles”? Men obey God. Women obey men. Until Tradcons teach this, they’re playing the shell game of claiming wifey shouldn’t submit because Hubby isn’t trying hard enough.

Race / Ethnicity

WE AFFIRM God made all people from one man. Though people often can be distinguished by different ethnicities and nationalities, they are ontological equals before God in both creation and redemption. “Race” is not a biblical category, but rather a social construct that often has been used to classify groups of people in terms of inferiority and superiority. All that is good, honest, just, and beautiful in various ethnic backgrounds and experiences can be celebrated as the fruit of God’s grace. All sinful actions and their results (including evils perpetrated between and upon ethnic groups by others) are to be confessed as sinful, repented of, and repudiated.

More Tradcon self-contradiction. All races are God-created beautiful in their own particular ways and all races are social constructs of oppression. Which is it?

How did the Church fill up with these delusional morons? “If it isn’t a Bible category then it’s a social construct.” “If it isn’t in my math textbook then it can’t be true.”

WE DENY that Christians should segregate themselves into racial groups or regard racial identity above, or even equal to, their identity in Christ. We deny that any divisions between people groups (from an unstated attitude of superiority to an overt spirit of resentment) have any legitimate place in the fellowship of the redeemed. We reject any teaching that encourages racial groups to view themselves as privileged oppressors or entitled victims of oppression. While we are to weep with those who weep, we deny that a person’s feelings of offense or oppression necessarily prove that someone else is guilty of sinful behaviors, oppression, or prejudice.

That answers my question. We should erase all racial distinctions from existence via mandatory, institutional miscegenation even though existing racial distinctions are “the fruit of God’s grace”. By their own logic, these people are cultural vandals destroying God’s creation of the races and nations.

The OT is chock-full of racial distinctions, many of them God-mandated. Citation needed for God now requiring interbreeding.

Meanwhile, these American citizens are calling for the violation of the First Amendment right to freedom of association by denying that Christians should be allowed to voluntarily segregate. No wonder conservatives don’t conserve the Constitution: they don’t like it.

So, Tradcons, about that Korean church down the street. You going to picket them for racially self-segregating? God-Damned hypocrites.

Culture

WE AFFIRM that some cultures operate on assumptions that are inherently better than those of other cultures because of the biblical truths that inform those worldviews that have produced these distinct assumptions. Those elements of a given culture that reflect divine revelation should be celebrated and promoted. But the various cultures out of which we have been called all have features that are worldly and sinful.and therefore those sinful features should be repudiated for the honor of Christ. We affirm that whatever evil influences to which we have been subjected via our culture can be.and must be.overcome through conversion and the training of both mind and heart through biblical truth.

I see they finally used the word “evil”, but not in relation to humans. Only “cultures” that must be overcome on general principles of “biblical truth”. Citation needed for which New Testament culture is the valid one… oh. Right. Judeo-Christianity. Which even the Jews hate.

WE DENY that individuals and sub-groups in any culture are unable, by God’s grace, to rise above whatever moral defects or spiritual deficiencies have been engendered or encouraged by their respective cultures.

If they’re able to and don’t then they should be punished for doing evil. If they’re unable then no punishment but we can’t live together; the Scorpion and the Frog. Which is it, Tradcons? All those black criminals filling our prisons, do they belong there or should they go back to Liberia?

Racism

WE AFFIRM that racism is a sin rooted in pride and malice which must be condemned and renounced by all who would honor the image of God in all people. Such racial sin can subtly or overtly manifest itself as racial animosity or racial vainglory. Such sinful prejudice or partiality falls short of God’s revealed will and violates the royal law of love. We affirm that virtually all cultures, including our own, at times contain laws and systems that foster racist attitudes and policies.

Racism is rooted in genetics and humans being a social species. It’s a very simple organization principle.

Is it wrong to care more for your own people than other peoples? Should a man be punished for caring more about his son than the neighbor’s son who is not his responsibility? Should we seek the welfare of other countries at the loss of our own? Of course not. First we help ourselves, then we are best able to help others. That’s all that racism is.

WE DENY that treating people with sinful partiality or prejudice is consistent with biblical Christianity.

Like Christ did with the Syrophoenician woman? He called her a dog.

We deny that only those in positions of power are capable of racism, or that individuals of any particular ethnic groups are incapable of racism.

Act like it. Picket those Korean churches. If the rooftop people scare you then picket the Hispanic churches. The black churches. The Amish churches. But no, you only hate whites. Your own people. You race traitors abandoned your own people, your own children to show how much you care about foreigners that you have no responsibility for. Per 1 Timothy 5:8, that makes you worse than an unbeliever. Be ashamed.

We deny that systemic racism is in any way compatible with the core principles of historic evangelical convictions. We deny that the Bible can be legitimately used to foster or justify partiality, prejudice, or contempt toward other ethnicities.

Like the ancient Cretans? Or the Jews accepting the bloodguilt of murdering God? “You foolish Galatians!”?

Once again, are these people trying to OPPOSE Social Justice?

We deny that the contemporary evangelical movement has any deliberate agenda to elevate one ethnic group and subjugate another.

The CONTEMPORARY evangelical movement wants white people extinct. Witness its support for migrants from everywhere except South African Boers.

And we emphatically deny that lectures on social issues (or activism aimed at reshaping the wider culture) are as vital to the life and health of the church as the preaching of the gospel and the exposition of Scripture. Historically, such things tend to become distractions that inevitably lead to departures from the gospel.

ARE YOU FUCKING KIDDING ME? THIS ENTIRE STATEMENT HAS BEEN A LECTURE ON SOCIAL ISSUES! YOU WROTE THIS TO RESHAPE WIDER CULTURE BY DEMANDING SPECIFIC OUTCOMES ON RACISM AND SEXUAL EQUALITY! If you think the Church’s purpose is reading Scripture out loud instead of social commentary then why did you write this? Which is it? Are you getting involved in social issues because they’re intruding into Church affairs or are you stopping your jobs to enjoy a distraction?

Stop. Contradicting. Yourselves.

Addendum

For more detailed consideration of some of the issues raised in this statement, we recommend the following two documents:

1987 Danvers Statement
2017 Nashville Statement

Presented without comment.

In conclusion, not only did they not confront any Social Justice priorities with this Statement, they didn’t say a single thing to risk their tax-exempt status. All of the “values borrowed from secular culture that are currently undermining Scripture” are the ones threatening the progress of Social Justice.

Carry on.

It’s not a secret that Antifa/Democrats/Progressive Experts, aka Leftoids, are trying to erase America’s past. U of North Carolina’s Silent Sam being a particularly visible example. An opinion piece I stumbled across on CNN accidentally let slip a couple details that you probably haven’t read in other coverage.

The toppling of a Confederate statue shows students’ strength

https://www.cnn.com/2018/08/22/opinions/unc-silent-sam-statue-students-are-leading-hemmer/

By Nicole Hemmer, 22 August 2018 [An opinion piece, not news]

Fat & stubborn with a masculine attitude, judging mainly from the lips, but not crazy-eyed as I’d expected. She might have been a decent housewife before getting “educated” in “change” at UNC.

(CNN) – On Monday night, students at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill toppled “Silent Sam,” the statue of a Confederate soldier that has stood on the campus for over a century. By early Tuesday morning, Chancellor Carol L. Folt, while acknowledging that the statue “was a source of frustration for many people,” had publicly rebuked the students involved, deeming their activism an act of vandalism that was both “unlawful and dangerous.” President Margaret Spellings and Board of Governors chairman Harry Smith went further, saying in a statement that “mob rule and intentional destruction of property will not be tolerated.”

Smith probably meant that. Spellings probably didn’t. Here is Chancellor Folt’s press release:

Dear Carolina Community:

As you are probably aware, a group from among an estimated crowd of 250 protesters brought down the Confederate Monument on our campus last night.

The monument has been divisive for years, and its presence has been a source of frustration for many people not only on our campus but throughout the community.

However, last night’s actions were unlawful and dangerous, and we are very fortunate that no one was injured. The police are investigating the vandalism and assessing the full extent of the damage.

I appreciate the actions taken by the police to ensure the community’s safety and will keep you informed as additional information is available.

Sincerely,

Carol L. Folt

Translation, thanks for trashing our stupid statue and don’t worry about the cops. Here’s the proof:

Then-governor Pat McCrory signed a bill in 2015 banning any government agency from removing an “object of remembrance” from public property that “commemorates an event, a person, or military service that is part of North Carolina’s history.” Smith cited this law on July 30 when he announced the Board would not take any action on the issue of Silent Sam — essentially rejecting a proposal made to the board in March to add historical context (with markers and Bluetooth interactivity, according to the Raleigh News & Observer) to the monument.

July 30, official statement that UNC gov’t was not allowed to tear down the statue. August 20, a mob of 200 vandals knocked it down. Organizing a group that size would take a couple weeks, yes? I hope the police investigation didn’t start in the morning after because that’s a really big group going after a really obvious target. Hard to believe they were entirely unaware.

Once Silent Sam was down, UNC officials carted him off and “opened a debate” on where the statue would be put. If UNC officials weren’t in league with Antifa then they would put the statue back in the same place with twice as much concrete to ensure Sam stays put. Maybe hang a few scalps around him. General Lee would have liked that.

Some of these UNC officials tried to couch their criticism of the pulling down of the statue as a safety concern, but at the heart of the matter lies a much bigger issue. UNC student activists aren’t the first to have university officials denounce rather than embrace their anti-racist activism. Given the liberal reputation of universities, that position is confusing. And it raises the question: Why are so many university administrators so quick to distance their institutions from students who are putting the university’s values and ideals into action? These official postures are perplexing, because these students are embodying exactly the sort of citizenship a university is meant to help shape: active, committed, informed, clear-eyed.

Mizz Hemmer is clearly not the sharpest knife in the drawer. UNC used a mob to do what they personally weren’t allowed to, after which they pretended to be horrified while picking out a good memory hole. The CNN censor didn’t do his job when he allowed Hemmer to accidentally raise the question of the way school officials were interacting with the “protesters”.

…As a result of student activism, however, universities became more liberal, in the broader sense of the word, after the 1960s. They grew more egalitarian, opening their doors to Jewish, non-white, non-elite, and women students. They broadened their course offerings to reflect the more diverse student body. They invited students to have a voice in university administration. And they embraced, however imperfectly, a more democratic vision of the university, emphasizing a diversity of voices and viewpoints, inquiry over dogma, and egalitarianism over hierarchy.

No, not as a result of student activism. A result of Soviet agitation, infiltration and corruption. This is documented. Any major social movement led by the young, especially women, is not lead by the young themselves… especially the women. Look behind the curtain, Hemmer, and don’t believe every sentiment that lands inside your empty, easily-led brain.

Yet that more open, inquisitive university has generally not embraced the values of an open society as readily as its students have. In part, that’s because university officials don’t just listen to students, but alumni, state lawmakers, and the wealthy. As a result, many universities remain more tradition-bound, more conservative, and more controversy-avoidant than students.

An example of her empty brain. Barbie, the Left’s “open society” refers to your girl parts, not tolerance for dissent. Silent Sam’s fall is a blaring red klaxon that your fellow students do not value an “open society” of any definition but Soros’, and the university not repairing the damage is proof of complicity, not opposition.

The issue of Confederate statues at places like UNC makes this point clear. Statues like Silent Sam are not just monuments — they are declarations, and false ones at that. They announce that soldiers fighting to preserve slavery were just as honorable as those fighting to preserve the Union. Their defenders argue they were erected as neutral historical markers rather than acts of racial terror.

More empty-brain twattle. “Hey, Lee, I’ve got a great idea. Let’s tear this country apart by murdering plantation slaves instead of merely exploiting them for cheap labor! It’ll be fun and we’ll be better off!” Nobody who stops to think about the matter can believe that slavery was the reason for the War of Northern Aggression.

In the 21st Century, college teaches you how to NOT think.

Neither of these things is true, and the students see that more clearly than administration officials. Or rather, they’re more willing to defend the university against these falsehoods than administrators are. That courage, and the devotion to both historical reality and anti-racism that it embodies, should be applauded by university officials — particularly when, as at both UNC and UVA, the students are doing more to protect the mission of the university than administrators are.

Hemmer looks forward to the Elites dropping their pretenses of law and orderly conduct, and exterminating American history and culture forever through anarchy instead of anarcho-tyranny. But her dim mind doesn’t realize, the people she hates–the culture she wants to exterminate with no restraint or mercy–is her own.

Edit 14 Sept 2018: UNC officials supervised the mob that tore down Silent Sam.

https://www.wral.com/unc-officials-watched-protestors-closely-as-silent-sam-fell-texts-show/17840251/

 

So Jesse David Fox claims. I can almost just link to this stuff, it’s such pure butthurt.

THE LEFT IS NOW CLAIMING THAT COMEDY NO LONGER NEEDS TO BE FUNNY

So long as it has “emotional impact.

Paul Joseph Watson | Infowars.com – SEPTEMBER 6, 2018

In an article for New York Magazine, Jesse David Fox writes, .Like Post-Rock, Post-Comedy uses the elements of comedy (be it stand-up, sitcom, or film) but without the goal of creating the traditional comedic result . laughter . instead focusing on tone, emotional impact, storytelling, and formal experimentation. The goal of being “funny” is optional for some or for the entirety of the piece..

Juicy! Let’s follow that link.

How Funny Does Comedy Need to Be?

http://www.vulture.com/2018/09/post-comedy-how-funny-does-comedy-need-to-be.html

By Jesse David Fox, 4 Sept 2018

Dayumn. Intentionally disorderly hair combined with glasses that form a sheer wall against reality are bad physiognometric indicators. His facial hair wants to be masculine without putting in the effort. A profile pic I found confirms that his chin juts out, indicating a forceful personality but other indicators such as jowls or vertical lines between the eyebrows are missing. Ears are large (above eyes & below nose) so an outward verbal orientation. His nose is large and well-defined indicating good energy levels.

This is a guy who’s unconventional because of disordered thoughts, who communicates well enough but is fearful-aggressive towards the outside world.

Why so serious? to quote a famous clown, is a question being asked about comedy more and more frequently by its consumers and by comedians themselves. To the point where some are questioning if it can even be called “comedy.”

They would be the conservatives who bought tickets.

Comedians and comedy writers are increasingly pushing the bounds of what it means for something to be a comedy in the most basic sense, rewiring the relationship between comedies and jokes. So what is comedy without jokes? It’s post-comedy.

*GQ checks Mirriam-Webster* Comedy without jokes can be “a medieval narrative that ends happily – Dante’s Divine Comedy” or what seems most relevant here, “a ludicrous or farcical event or series of events – a comedy of errors”.

Guess what, liberals, Dante beat you to unfunny comedy when he wrote about Hell.

So. Fitting.

Sure, [post-comedy] sounds pretentious; it’s a pretentious shift, especially for a form that has always seemed allergic to pretension. But it seems the best way to describe comedy is that it’s looking more like the frowning mask than the smiling one. I was confused to see some writers refer to Nanette, Hannah Gadsby’s much discussed stand-up special that deconstructed how stand-up works and passionately made a case for the shortcomings of comedy as a medium for expressing pain, as .anti-comedy.. Though it takes an antagonistic view of comedy, anti-comedy is already a thing (simply: it’s a joke that’s funny because it’s not unfunny), and it is not what Hannah Gadsby did. My colleague Matt Zoller Seitz’s term for serious comedies . the “comedy in theory. . is closer, but it’s become increasingly clear that they are comedies in practice, formally redefining what comedy is itself.

This type of work is not completely without precedent . I’m thinking of certain early SNL work (especially Tom Schiller’s short films), or Beth Lapides’s influential L.A. alternative comedy show UnCabaret, that asked comics to not do their acts and instead focus on stream-of-conscious storytelling.

That sort of thing works for reality TV because low production values are expected and it plays to the hamsters of young women: solipsism, casual sex and savage barbarians wiping their asses with their hands. Not a good look for family events.

Jesse Fox is a Leftoid, right? I bet his “stream of consciousness” leads to an ocean of Trump Derangement Syndrome.

But in the years since Louie premiered, it has not only become more common, it’s tended to dominate the conversation around comedy. It’s hard to not see this as a direct result of an era in which comedy and comedians are celebrated, but not exactly for being funny.

Because all y’all are a comedy of errors, like women in Army Rangers.

Fast forward a few months to a different person, but the same network: Dave Chappelle quits Chappelle’s Show, as the story goes, over concern that people watching (specifically white people) were laughing at the wrong parts of his jokes, obscuring the comedy’s intention. Chappelle was arguably one of the absolute biggest comedians of millennials. youth, so the conversation around his departure was particularly foundational. And while he was beloved for doing comedy, he was revered for stopping.

Hahaha! Oh wait, he wasn’t joking.

Not too long after, you got Louis C.K. being called a genius for making an often jokeless show and, on his podcast, Marc Maron showing millions that comedians are complex, fascinating creatures who just happen to make people laugh for a living. Tig Notaro got cancer. Transparent premiered. Yada yada Trump became president and comedians were placed at the front lines of the resistance, regardless of what their act entailed.

Yep, TDS! Comedians “were placed” on the front lines? No, bro, it was more like this:

Here we are. A lot of comedy over the last few years isn’t funny, and there are no signs that things are getting any funnier. These things don’t exactly happen by coincidence. In a fractured media landscape, where ratings have become less important, and more viewers are cutting cords, the industry must rely more on buzz to draw viewers to their content.

The irony here is thick and zesty.

You can see technology’s influence on comedy even more in the stand-up special. When specials were a rare occurence, the comic’s focus was on building an act that could sustain them for years. But the number of specials Netflix greenlights, and the amount of money it spends on them, is slowly subverting the fundamental structure of stand-up comedy . transforming it from a live medium to a filmed one. …

To take it a step further, like everything that came after the financial crisis of 2008, the comedy boom that kicked into high gear a few months later is colored by a distrust of institutions.

That growing distrust was a feature, not a bug of 2008-2010. We learned our institutions have no concern for our welfare. A bad time for you ‘performers’ to decide live audiences having fun were crimping your style.

And for comedy, the institution is capital-C Comedy. While Hannah Gadsby is not American, Nanette became such a sensation here because it fit so perfectly with where things were going culturally. In many ways, it felt like a continuation of recent specials that were directly about comedy and how it functions . Make Happy, Thank God for Jokes, 3 Mics (though less explicitly), Cameron Esposito’s Rape Jokes. You listen to enough comedians talk on podcasts, and you.ll hear a generation wrestling with comedy itself, and what it means to be a stand-up when there are fewer big opportunities, but more small ones.

Feminism vs Reality is what’s dividing our country, not… um… “Cameron Esposito’s Rape Jokes”?

Looking at all of this together, what I’m seeing is a shift away from comedian as provider of a service (laughs), and toward comedian as artist.

An excellent sentiment to stop with. Comedians used to provide something of service, laughter at the difficulties and absurdities of life, a brief moment of putting our troubles aside. Such laughter is an invaluable defense mechanism; the day I stop laughing at the antics of child molesters, petty tyrants and Satanists will be a very bad day.

But liberal comedians don’t want to make money helping people. They fantasize about being our masters, about filling our brains with rape jokes and proper thoughts to think… at our own expense.

A liberal is someone who is excited by the disgusting and disgusted by service to others. Humility is their nightmare. That’s what Fox’s talk about “being an artist” is about. He wants to stop serving others and serve himself instead, giving license to all the scat and splat festering in his brain and justifying it all with claiming to be new and special.

These people are so deep in rebellion, they’d rather destroy themselves doing shrill monologues instead of helping themselves by helping others. Humility and seeking the welfare of our fellow man is the Christian path, even when you make a good profit by doing so; arrogance and narcissism is the path of the unrighteous, and most will end up in Hell long before they die.

Probably the third circle.

 

Yes, yes, today I’m Captain Obvious but this has got to be the shortest-lived SJW boycott of recent history. More than that, it appears Chick-Fil-A has broken the SJWs’ will to enact boycotts in the food services industry so they deserve a shout-out for standing their ground.

BEFORE:

https://www.fresnobee.com/news/state/california/article217577065.html

Thursday, 30 August 2018

California Democratic Party Chairman Eric Bauman is calling for a boycott of In-N-Out Burger after the Irvine-based fast-food chain this week donated $25,000 to help Republicans this November.

.Et tu In-N-Out? Tens of thousands of dollars donated to the California Republican Party,. Bauman wrote on Twitter. .It’s time to #BoycottInNOut . let Trump and his cronies support these creeps.perhaps animal style!.

AFTER:

https://www.fresnobee.com/news/local/article217765155.html

Labor Day Monday, 3 Sept 2018

.There is no boycott,. Bauman said. .I put one tweet out at 10:30 at night and it turned into a whole thing. We’ve raised so much money in small donations as a result of that one tweet and so many people have engaged with that tweet, almost a million people, so it’s amazing how it became this big boycott.. …

Earlier this week, the state party’s communications director said that the boycott was Bauman’s personal view, and was not being taken as an official stance.

.Chair Bauman’s personal tweet reflects his belief that he shouldn’t support companies that support the Trump agenda,. John Vigna said in a statement.

Bauman seemed not to be taking the tweet seriously, either. He said he wasn’t even personally boycotting the fast food restaurant.

.Are you kidding me?. Bauman said, laughing. .I.m gonna buy my staff In-N-Out burgers to celebrate our victory..

ELAPSED TIME: Two weekdays.

Classic SJW behavior, exactly as Vox Day described in his books. Bauman points & shrieks and when none of his supporters join him, he pretends he wasn’t serious and why would people listen to the California DNC Chairman, anyway? Reminds me of… somebody… can’t recall…

A healthy ego would have said “I apologize for taking their lawful donation to a political rival as an existential threat”. But apologizing is exactly what you never ever do when the sharks are circling you… even when you yourself are the sharks’ leader.

Eric Bauman on the left (heh), homosexual lover Michael Andraychak on the right. Being an openly flaming homosexual explains a lot about his hatred of Christ’s followers. Were we to reclaim the halls of power, his time of sexual perversions would end.

Previously on my blog:

https://gunnerq.androsphere.net/2018/08/31/gabe-schneider-midwit-sjw/

Postscript, I like John Scalzi’s red choker. It reminds me of the French Revolution.

 

Dennis Prager has been exposed as a fraud and his PragerU is busy writing the definitive textbook on Tradcon policy, specifically the Nobody Is Left To Care edition. However, a recent series of “Explaining the Left” editorials is useful, in a correctable sense. I’ll focus on the third of the series.

https://www.dailywire.com/news/35347/prager-explaining-left-part-iii-leftism-secular-dennis-prager

PRAGER: Explaining The Left, Part III: Leftism As Secular Religion

https://www.dailywire.com/news/35347/prager-explaining-left-part-iii-leftism-secular-dennis-prager

By Dennis Prager, 1 Sept 2018

Prager is right; Leftism is a religion.

Marx saw man’s primary drive as economic, and Freud saw it as sex. But Frankl believed . correctly, in my opinion . that the greatest drive of man is meaning.

Religion, Prager. Not meaning. Prager disagreed with himself in the first three sentences.

The greatest provider of meaning for the vast majority of human beings has been religion. In the West, Christianity (and on a smaller scale, Judaism) provided nearly all people with the Bible, a divine or divinely inspired text to guide their lives; a religious community; answers to life’s fundamental questions; and, above all, meaning: A good God governs the universe; death does not end everything; and human beings were purposefully created. In addition, Christianity gave Christians a project: spread the Good News, and bring the world to Christ. And Judaism gave Jews a project: Live by God’s laws of ethics and holiness and be “a light unto the nations.”

Leftism is the search for meaning APART FROM GOD. “Fuck you, Father God” is its first and only inviolable tenet. Prager himself demonstrates Jewish Leftism here when he claims Judaism gives his people something to do, when in fact it was supposed to give his people Someone to follow.

I can speak for the Christian side about the inanity of “preach the Gospel” Tradcons. My clergy are so hopelessly out of touch that they haven’t even realized that the Great Commission has been completed. Every last corner of the planet has heard about Christ, in every language.

On dark nights, I think that the reason God has abandoned His Church is because we’ve completed our work of evangelism and must now be prevented from acting as the salt of the earth The devil can only rise to power over the Church’s dead body.

All this has disappeared for most Westerners. The Bible is regarded as myth, silly at best, malicious at worst . there is no God, certainly not the morality-giving and judging God of the Bible; there is no afterlife; human beings are a purposeless coincidence with no more intrinsic purpose than anything else in the universe. In short: This Is All There Is.

That didn’t happen in a vacuum, Prager. Many Leftists worked very hard to make God go away. Leftism isn’t filling a new void.

The answer is obvious: Find meaning elsewhere. But where? Church won’t provide it. Nor will marriage and family . increasingly, secular individuals in the West eschew marriage, and even more do not have children. It turns out, to the surprise of many, that marriage and children are religious values, not human instincts. In the West today, love and marriage (and children) go together like a horse and a carriage for faithful Catholics, Orthodox Jews, religious Mormons and evangelical Protestants . not for the secular. I know many religious families with more than four children; I do not know one secular family with more than four children (and the odds are you don’t either).

I’ve met several Chads from the ghettoes. Babies galore! Meanwhile, Prager pretends that marriage is something only the devout would value, when in fact marriage is now a risk that only the devout are forced to endure in obedience to God. Many atheists would love to have a domestic wife and kids; decrees from Pope Judas not required; but marriage is so risky that they prudently shun it. As do I myself.

The answer to the great dearth of meaning left by the death of biblical religion in the West is secular religion. The first two great secular substitutes were communism and Nazism. The first provided hundreds of millions of people with meaning; the latter provided most Germans and Austrians with meaning.

There’s only one substitute for God; the devil. It’s the same reason the only substitute for patriarchy is matriarchy, or the only substitute for order is chaos, or the only substitute for producer is consumer. Religion is a continuum, not a marketplace. Truth exists and religions can be ranked by how close they come to the light. The Leftist ranking is “not at all”.

With the fall of communism and the awareness of the extent of the communist mass murder (about 100 million noncombatants) and mass enslavement (virtually all individuals in communist countries . except for Communist Party leaders . are essentially enslaved), communism, or at least the word “communism,” fell into disrepute.

So, what were secular intellectuals to do once communism became “the god that failed”?

The answer was to create other another left-wing secular religion. And that is what leftism is: a secular meaning-giver to supplant Christianity. Left-wing religious expressions include Marxism, communism, socialism, feminism and environmentalism.

There’s only one left-wing secular religion, although it does re-brand itself occasionally. Don’t pretend your Jews haven’t had more than their share of intellectual Leftists, Prager.

Leftism’s guiding principles . notwithstanding the principles of those Christians and Jews who claim to be religious yet hold leftist views . are the antitheses of Judaism and Christianity’s guiding principles.

Now he’s right again.

…There may be a clash of civilizations between the West and Islam, but the biggest clash of civilizations is between the West and the left.

Now he’s wrong again. There’s no clash between the Left and Islam. They work together to destabilize entire nations. They share dreams of global conquest. They both enjoy raping children and ruling by mob while their handlers enjoy sultan-level comfort. They share the same location “on the spectrum”.

Prager has the Jewish habit of thinking God is a means to a good society. This blinds Prager into thinking that the Leftist error is using a motivation other than God when in fact, the Leftists want to get rid of God as an end in itself. That is how they define a good society. Leftists aren’t unable to have kids, keep promises, live with their neighbors etc…. they’re unwilling, because those habits please God.

The Left is waging a religious war against us Christians and Prager’s “do what brings you ideal results” theology is exactly what the Left is doing.

Why does the Left hate God? Not to fill a void of “meaning”. They hate God for the same reason wifey hates hubby, because she resents all the fun evil she could be doing and thinks she could do a better job, if only she usurps his strength and authority.