How Can White Identitarians Support A Jewish-Originated Religion? A Response To Jim Goad

Yesterday I wrote,

Some dumb atheists say, “How can you pro-White Christian European nationalists be anti-semitic when your Jesus was a Jew? Clearly Christianity is Jewish and not European.” I’m a huge Goadhead/Goadiot (really hoping those terms catch on), but even he made that retard ass argument. Ultimately it’s an argument against Christianity, not against European identitarianism.

I had written out a long response to the argument of how a pro-White Christian can be anti-Jewish, but I decided it veered too off topic from this article. And therefore I will post that portion in a post tomorrow.

And so here I will respond to Jim Goad’s article, which I’m sure he’ll never see. Again, I love Jim Goad, warts and all. Unlike certain people on the internet whom I won’t name, I’m not going to pitch a fit just because he occasionally writes things I disagree with. I’ve emailed with him a little bit, and yes he is a total asshole on the internet and sometimes epitomizes the atheist stereotype, but there’s so much redeeming value in his work. My copy of Shit Magnet is so underlined that it’s lost all resale value.

Jim Goad is technically an agnostic, but the philosophical differences between the various types of Western secularists who believe in a materialist philosophy are not relevant here. So I’m referring to him as an atheist out of habit, even though it technically isn’t accurate.

If the Gospels are to be trusted, Jesus seemed to have spent much of his adult life actively opposing the Roman Empire, which was perhaps the grandest civilization the West has ever produced.

Actually no. Jesus was politically inactive. He specifically said he has not come as a political leader. Typical atheist strawman. They read the Bible superficially merely to find reasons to disprove it so that they don’t have to live up to the standard of morality the Bible teaches. They aren’t interested in the actual meaning of the Bible. “Seeing they do not see, and hearing they do not hear.” Don’t take them seriously.

Was the Roman Empire the grandest civilization the West has ever produced? It depends on your metric. Personally I would give that prize to the United Kingdom at its height.

From the fall of Rome until the Renaissance, there was a dark, almost thousand-year stretch during which Christianity reigned supreme in a Europe that wallowed in disease and backwardness compared to non-Christian civilizations in the Middle East, Asia, and Northern Africa.

Fake news. The Dark Ages (generally held to be from roughly AD 500 to 1000) is a misnomer. Technically the term refers to the lack of written documents that have survived, not the lack of knowledge. There was political instability, and some of Roman technology was lost, but they were not superstitious heathens without literature or science. The troubles of the Dark Ages were from a politically fractured Europe where small states struggled to defend themselves, and if anything, it is Christianity that held Europe together from total civilizational collapse. Once Rome was gone, Christianity is what gave Europeans their common identity, and it is then that you first begin to see a notion of Europeans sharing a common society that transcends political boundaries.

And even if the Dark Ages were backwards and barbarian (which I’m not conceding), the Eastern Roman Empire still flourished, even producing crude mechanics. Constantinople was the largest city in the world and a major center of trade.

Notice also that Goad stretched the Dark Ages beyond the actual Dark Ages, applying it to all of the Middle Ages. I guess in fairness he doesn’t use the term “Dark Ages”, but he uses “dark” as an adjective, so it causes the reader to conflate the two. The later Middle Ages is the civilization of Chaucer, Petrarch, Thomas Aquinas, the Crusades, the invention of Western music notation, and glorious gothic cathedrals. Yes, dark indeed.

Wallowing in disease? Which civilization didn’t wallow in disease before the invention of modern, Western medicine.

download_20181105_131617.jpg

Backwardness? Can we define our terms? No, Goad has no interest in doing that.

People talk a lot about how Medieval Islam was full of science and philosophy, but they never cite very much. I’m call shenanigans on this claim. I strongly suspect Islamic societies have always been backwards and barbaric. Islam does not inspire its adherent to discover and ask questions. It is a political ideology of mindless submission.

In the real world—the one unclouded by the fog of superstition—the West only began dominating the rest of the world when it started focusing on technology and trade to the detriment of blind mysticism and blind faith.

See, that’s not even true. Show me any evidence that Western Europe in the early Middle Ages was at all opposed to technology and trade. If anything, they developed new weapons and new defense systems. Medieval Europe developed new forms of ballistics like catapults, crossbows, and early cannons. They engineered various forms of castles and battle armor.

And what is this blind mysticism and blind faith? The implication is Christianity, but what about it is blind? Does Goad imply that there can be a faith and mysticism that isn’t blind?

He’s just using words to anger you. He’s not insincere, but he’s still trolling. Don’t take it seriously. He’s always been a prankster, and he’s trying to piss off his own readers. That’s not to say that he doesn’t mean the words he’s writing.

Look, I do the same thing. I say things like, “I hate fat people and actively discriminate against them.” That’s not actually quite true, as I’m as polite to fat people as I am to any stranger. The same is true with gays, single mothers, and divorced people. The point I’m really saying is that I’m tired of couching criticism from a right-wing position in “not all do this” and “love the sinner” and “show people human dignity” language. It puts you on the defense and plays on the left’s field.

You can both troll and be serious. Really, I think most trolling is more of what used to be known as satire.

One could likewise argue that the Islamic world—which had a leg up on Europe throughout much of the Middle Ages—ultimately languished behind Christendom due to its dogged embrace of blind faith over scientific curiosity.

Again, can you cite the claim that Islam was more scientifically advanced and scientifically curious than Europe in the Middle Ages? No, you cannot. No examples are given. No Muslim scientists are named. Goad is repeating dumb leftist tropes that aren’t based in history.

And if the “West” is declining—which I think it is, for reasons that have far more to do with birth rates than any vague notions of “godlessness”

The two are related. Atheists don’t reproduce in sustainable numbers. No secular society has ever maintained a birth rate.

Across the entire modern Christian spectrum, you’d be hard-pressed to find any sect that doesn’t openly parrot a distinctly Cultural Marxist set of ethics. All of the old sins have been replaced with new ones: In just about any church these days, you’ll hear far more about “racism” and “sexism” and “homophobia” than you will about adultery and sodomy and abortion.

So here Goad is conflating the instigation with the reaction. The “trad Christian right” that he is criticizing is reacting against the cultural Marxism that has infected Christianity. I wouldn’t describe myself as a “trad Christian,” but I guess my views are close to them. They criticize society as much as they criticize their own churches.

In other words, they believe Christians should engage in self-reflection. Not a lot of that in our society.

Anyone who believes that Christianity is synonymous with European identity has to wrestle with the painfully unpleasant fact that the global Christian population is now majority nonwhite.

Actually, no we don’t. Christianity is integral to European identity. The European paganism is long gone, and it was terrible anyway. Just because Christianity is broader than Europe doesn’t mean that Christianity is exclusive to people of European descent.

Literally no one finds this painful or unpleasant that. It’s another dumb atheist straw man. They create a ridiculous thing no one could possibly believe and then say, “Who could possibly believe this?” Gavin McInnes had a really good video on this, though it was more about social and political issues.

Anyway, Goad’s article:

[T]he undeniable truth is that Christianity has always been a Semitic religion rather than a European one. Yes, it was coopted by Europeans and sculpted into a belief system that for a long time was openly anti-Jewish—every word of Martin Luther’s “On the Jews and Their Lies” drips with Jew-hatin’ venom—but the sad, inescapable irony is that Luther worshiped a Jewish man as a deity and followed a religion whose chief initial propagandist—Saul of Tarsus—was a practicing Jew.

Again, not something anyone is surprised about. Christians have conventionally been anti-semitic because the Jews rejected the covenant. Christians are not opposed to Jews as an ethnicity, and all the various inquisitions and persecutions allowed any Jew to take an out by converting to Christianity. What Christians have been opposed to is Judaism the ideology and culture, because it is corrosive to society.

Any honest historian will tell you that Judaism has changed radically from the time of Jesus to the present day (and even by Jesus’s time it was significantly different than the religion of Moses and David). Ancient Judaism was built around the temple cult and existed in a specific location with a system of family lineage. The Mosaic law is geographical.

After the temple was destroyed in AD 70, the Jews were scattered, and their theology became reactionary to Christianity. No longer did you have lineages of priests. There were no tribes. The emphasis came to be on teaching in the synagogue and keeping the traditions of the Talmud. All forms of modern Judaism are based on the Pharisaical sect Judaism, which Jesus was actively criticizing (though he was somewhat a part of that tradition). Not all Jews of Jesus’s time believed in the Talmud; today it’s inseparable from Orthodox Judaism.

It’s not sad or ironic that Luther worshiped a Jewish man as a deity. That’s a core concept of the Bible.

[I]f your goal is to save Europe, a majority-nonwhite religion that did not originate on European soil, a religion that in almost all of its modern iterations is resolutely globalist and anti-European in its outreach and appeal, might not be your best bet.

Yeah, Christianity is about more than race. It’s a values set that has made Western Civilization the greatest civilization ever. We think other races should have this same values set so that they can also have great civilizations. We also think that Christianity should return to its conventional beliefs and quit trying to be popular with the secular left.

Is anyone surprised by that? Show of hands. Who here finds either the last Goad quote or my paragraph below it to be something new they had never thought about? This is Christianity 101.

Lately Goad has been on a warpath against people who assume they can read others’ motivations. Then he writes blatantly hypocritical paragraphs like these:

None of this should be a problem unless you’re a Christian who dislikes Jews, because your entire belief system was bequeathed to you by Jews, which winds up making you look more than a wee bit silly.

To avoid being walking contradictions, modern white Christians who are concerned about Europe’s demographic decline should either accept that the religion they practice claims to be the fulfillment of Old Testament Judaism—at which point they should lay off the Jews, seeing as they’re the apple of God’s eye and all—or maybe they should search for a belief system that actually originated from European minds on European soil.

Or maybe the belief in European survival is the only belief system Europeans actually need in order to survive.

Assumptive much? The whole article is assuming that anti-semitic Christians are unaware that Jesus was Jewish.

The main reason I’m not a White nationalist is this essay by Jack Donovan. His basic argument is that White people have killed each other for centuries over ideology, and now people think that once we have a White ethnostate we won’t resume those wars.

Goad doesn’t understand that, because atheists have very simplistic arguments that don’t understand nuance or culture. They pride themselves on being “above it all” while really being in the midst of it all. They don’t argue with integrity. They don’t argue objectively. Goad is the most polite, rational person ever until you get to the topic of religion, and then he turns hysterical. Despite his claims of having left Christianity, he is still deeply invested in it emotionally.

This seems to be the case for most atheists who grew up Catholic. If you grow up Catholic, you never truly leave it. Former Catholic atheists will say, “Yeah I grew up Catholic, so I know how dumb Christianity is,” and then the protestant says, “Catholicism isn’t Christianity.” And what does the former Catholic but now liberal atheist say? The same thing devout Catholics say to protestants who delegitimize their church: “The Catholic Church was the first Church,” as though that’s some argument-ending bombshell no one had ever considered.

Anyway, the point isn’t merely to become a White majority country. As I’ve written before, the White race is worthless without Christ. Whether or not Christianity has its origin in the Mideast is irrelevant, because Christianity transcends culture. My response to Jim Goad’s article is simply its title: So what if Jesus was Jewish?

Meanwhile, readers are encouraged to find me an atheist who actually understands the Christianity he is arguing against. Post the link on that other blog post for reader suggestions. I doubt you’ll find any examples though.

Advertisements

Two Hours From The Wall

In two hours we’ll get our state of emergency, and all of Trump’s fair-weather fans will be made to look like the cowards they are. I never doubted though. I always had full trust that Batman would never abandon Gotham City or murder Harvey Dent.

Unfortunately, Congress passed veto-proof legislation that ties up the use of funding for the wall. But I think we’re in uncharted legal ground, and Trump just finished stacking the Supreme Court. He’ll find a way. I think the new Supreme Court is partly why he waited so long. The inevitable challenge is really important. It has to go right.

Ultimately, even if the wall doesn’t get built, as long as Trump puts up a fight in the Supreme Court and takes the extreme measure of the national emergency, that’s all that really counts. The Wall is more than a wall. It’s a symbol of our national sovereignty.

Eisenhower got rid of all the illegals by a few rounds ups. The rest scattered like cockroaches. These aren’t stable people.

Put some pressure on the employers, and there really won’t be a need for a wall. All you need is a few mass ICE raids in California and a crackdown on voter fraud.

We need to build the wall just to prove to ourselves that we can.

What Color Was Jesus?

Commenter Steven writes,

Can you write about the depictions of Jesus, and why it is such a controversy to portray him as a white man. And also do you think he’s white or brown. I have read a lot of articles, from the Right, trying to prove he’s white. Like this one: http://faithandheritage.com/2017/03/ehud-woulds-first-podcast-the-white-christ/

If you want me to write on a topic, comment on my post.

Anyway, my commentary on the article in question.

Today’s subject comes courtesy of all those Alienists who, crossing paths with troglodytes like us, reflexively bark, “Jesus wasn’t White, you know!”, “Jesus was a Brown Palestinian!”, “Jesus was a swarthy Jew,”

Liberals and Christcucks say this as though it’s some new revelation. Jesus was Jewish? No way. Who knew? Did the Bible ever mention that? Maybe just a few times.

Yes, everyone knows Jesus wasn’t White. No surprise. That’s not the issue.

The Left does this all the time. They attribute motivation and make a ridiculous straw man. Conservative Christians know that Jesus wasn’t White, and yet they still oppose masses of Aztecs flooding into rural America. Keeping out the fecal run-off of the third world doesn’t have anything to do with ancient Mediterranean migration patterns.

Another issue. Jews aren’t brown. Yes, I don’t consider them to be ethnically White, but as far as skin tone goes they are, well, white. And actually that’s the norm for the old stock (ie, mostly non-Muslim) people in the eastern Mediterranean. I’ve dated three Arabian Christian girls, and all of them were whiter than I am.

Consider this picture of Assad’s family:

Al_Assad_family

Here is a mini-documentary on indigenous Egyptian Christians. Notice they look, well, not really white, but not particularly brown either:

Muslim sources say that Mohammad was so pale that he shined. Ancient Greek pottery often depicted Greeks as not having dark hair, and in the Iliad Menelaus is frequently described as blonde.

So what color were those in the ancient eastern Mediterranean? It’s impossible to tell. Most likely they were probably a few shades darker than a Viking king but still far from looking like a Turk. And most likely the working class were darker than the ruling class like in most societies. The lower classes spend more time working in the sun over the generations, and so a kind of loose caste micro-evolves darker skin. Despite his distant royal lineage, Jesus was still a carpenter.

Think of your “leathery skin, chain-smoking redneck” here in America. That Johnny Cash and John Wayne complexion. That would be my guess of what Jesus looked like, as well as Andrew Jackson and Nathan Bedford Forrest.

blue-collar-jesus-turns-water-into-miller-lite-heresy-_josephus-8347061
Artist’s approximation

Personally, I have no problem with other races depicting Jesus as looking like them. Jesus came for all of humanity. As long as it’s understood to be poetic and not literal, I don’t have a problem with an Asian Jesus or a Black Jesus.

bd98c8db4850a231d2768264c001ddef

images

I couldn’t find information on how official the Asian icon is. I found it on this page. Looking at it now, his hands are in a weird place. The Black Jesus is from the Ethiopian Church, which is out of communion with the mainstream Orthodox Church.

Anyway, on with the article:

Suffice it to say, without plunging into any abstruse detail of Greek and Hebrew etymology, that the translators of our English Bibles have enjoyed an historical consensus in describing king David as “white and ruddy” (1 Sam. 16:12 and 17:42).

Likewise is his son Solomon described as “white and ruddy” (Song 5:10), and the context compels this translation aggressively, further describing Solomon’s belly to have been “as bright ivory” (Song 5:14). And speaking of groups of Israelites as “purer than snow, whiter than milk, ruddy in body” (Lam. 4:7).

Let’s look at these verses. We’ll be looking at Brenton’s Septuagint, for reasons beyond the scope of this article. I checked all of them against the King James Version, and there were no major differences.

1 Samuel 16:12 is the one most often pointed to. As far as I know, no translation describes David as white. The LXX says, “And he sent and fetched him: and he was ruddy, with beauty of eyes, and very goodly to behold. And the Lord said to Samuel, Arise, and anoint David, for he is good.”

The verse in the next chapter says, “And Goliath saw David, and despised him; for he was a lad, and ruddy, with a fair countenance.”

Fair countenance can kind of mean pale, but it’s not specific. It could mean light-hearted. Or it could mean that he was just attractive in the face. Ruddy just seems to mean red-skinned, which seems to be that above redneck look.

So David isn’t a good example. What about Song of Solomon chapter 5?

10 My kinsman is white and ruddy, chosen out from myriads. 11 His head is very fine gold, his locks are flowing, black as a raven. 12 His eyes are as doves, by the pools of waters, washed with milk, sitting by the pools. 13 His cheeks are as bowls of spices pouring forth perfumes: his lips are lilies, dropping choice myrrh. 14 His hands are as turned gold set with beryl: his belly is an ivory tablet on a sapphire stone.

Excessively poetic, but yes it seems that there were white people in Israel. It would be hard to describe a fair-skinned red-dot Indian as having eyes washed with milk. Though it’s kind of hard to describe anyone like that. So this passage is ambiguous but sort of leads to the white category.

Finally we get to Lamentations 4:7, “Her Nazarites were made purer than snow, they were whiter than milk, they were purified with fire, their polishing was superior to sapphire stone.”

Again, it’s really poetic. I don’t see this as real evidence.

But also again, it should be a non-issue. It doesn’t matter how dark or light Jesus was.

Then the article talks about various people in the Bible blushing, which seems to be more of a white people trait. Your face can’t turn darker if it’s already dark.

Blushing is referenced at least sixteen times in Scripture, making it a prominent theme. Ask yourself what blushing could possibly even mean to brown or black races? Blushing is in fact a meaningless concept except amongst the fairest peoples of earth.

The author quotes some first century sources describing what Jesus looked like, but these seem kind of suspicious. Forgeries and misattributations were not at all uncommon in the ancient world. I’ve never heard of the documents he’s referencing, and he doesn’t provide a useful context.

But sure, maybe Jesus was a blonde-haired Aryan superman. I don’t care. Almost no one opposing illegal immigration cares. Religious artists did not and do not care. That’s not the issue and never has been.

And in fact, the article even says that [emphasis added]:

And the funny thing about this is that we traditional Christians actually find the question of Jesus’s complexion and hair color rather beside the point with respect to the efficacy of His sacrifice for the nations. While we recognize a regal caste as befitting the King of all kings and Lord of all Lords, the Church has never suggested that Jesus’s sacrifice applied only to those who look like Him. For most Europeans don’t even have blond hair and light blue eyes. Fewer still share the luminous quality by which His is described.

No, it is actually the Alienists who, in their crazed denials of all biblical and para-biblical evidence alike, insist that Jesus’s Caucasic morphology would somehow limit His grace to Europeans and those fairer tribes of Yazidis, Persians, and like tribes of Asia Minor. They, the supposed egalitarian anti-racists, are the ones who insist that a White Jesus would have no interest in, and therefore no power to save, the Canaanite woman who contented herself with the crumbs which fell from the Master’s table, nor for the Ethiopian eunuch who hungered for Philip’s preaching. That is, they hold that if Jesus was of a ruddy people, it would make Him irrelevant to all the non-White peoples of the world.

Some dumb atheists say, “How can you pro-White Christian European nationalists be anti-semitic when your Jesus was a Jew? Clearly Christianity is Jewish and not European.” I’m a huge Goadhead/Goadiot (really hoping those terms catch on), but even he made that retard ass argument. Ultimately it’s an argument against Christianity, not against European identitarianism.

I had written out a long response to the argument of how a pro-White Christian can be anti-Jewish, but I decided it veered too off topic from this article. And therefore I will publish that portion in a post tomorrow.

As for the article Steven sent me, I actually enjoyed it. Much better than I expected. I don’t know anything about the website and can’t comment further on the author.

The Military Is For Losers

Most people who join the military are losers don’t know how else to make their parents proud. Some are psychopaths who want a legal means to exercise their sadism. Others just want the stable work and kick ass benefits.

But nobody signs up because they are worried about the stability of Syria.

We haven’t had a war for American freedom since 1812. Yet the Evangelical Christian worships the troops as the safeguard of Christianity. The troops aren’t just killing communists in Asia; they are doing the work of God. Stupid protestants will even cut twenty minutes of worship time to sing patriotic songs on the Sunday of veterans day. How is that not idolatry?

Meanwhile the political party in control of the lower half of Congress is almost explicitly anti-Christian. On the other side of the aisle, Reagan and both Bushes allowed the IRS to harass the churches of their own voters. The highest American value is a man putting his penis in another man’s anus. Our government and media value the self-esteem of sodomites more than your church being able to speak truth to power.

And you want me to die in a desert shithole? For what, a country that hates straight white conservative men?

Frankly, I don’t really care if we’re in Childrapeistan for the next fifty years. If people want to risk their lives for the government benefits, so be it. I see the military as just another government job. I’m not anti-military at all, but I’m not really a supporter either. What I am is radically neutral. I value veterans as much as I value any other homeless person.

Recently the Army releases this hip-hop recruitment video, proving both my point about the military being for social retards and that taxation is theft.

Letter To Josh Harris

I recently sent this email to Josh Harris. He didn’t respond, which is fine. This is a summary of my thoughts about the true love waits movement a lot of us grew up in.

Some of you may not have ever heard of the book, in which case this post may not be for you. The book was kind of like Eat, Pray, Love, but in the opposite direction.

Because the letter is so long, I’m breaking my normal convention about not putting important points in bold type. Also, there’s some chance this might show up as one long paragraph. The WordPress app is being finicky, but I think I got the spacing right.

*****

Mr Harris,

I saw recently that you have discontinued your book I Kissed Dating Goodbye and have said that you think it was the wrong approach. I’d like to give my thoughts on that. I’m sorry that they are so long, but I wanted to write a full response.

I am 28 years old. When I was thirteen or so, my mother paid me $20 to read your book (as she did for my two brothers). She had a lecture CD you did that she played for us in the car. She constantly told us the greatest gift one can give to his wife is his virginity, and we weren’t allowed to consume any media with any sex in it.

She was, frankly, a simple woman who did what she was told, and James Dobson was her pope. My father was a Baptist pastor who broke up the family (though he was still present), so she had to do the best as she could by her own judgment, which wasn’t worth much.

What I always found interesting about your book is that despite its massive popularity, nobody actually followed the advice. Nobody transitioned into a courtship model. Everyone just kept dating and promised themselves they would be extra careful. It’s as though all the book did was reaffirm what people already told themselves, like wearing pink in support of breast cancer.

Your recent statement claimed that the book talked about several concepts that weren’t in the Bible, which is true, but the book was still correct that the modern dating culture wasn’t in the Bible either.

So what does the Bible actually say about how to find a spouse? Not much, actually. The only thing I can think of is what St Paul said about how a father can choose whether or not to give his daughter away, making no mention about what the girl wants. The Bible has lots of advice about what kind of husband or wife you should be (most of which is ignored by American Christianity), but it says nothing about what you should look for in a spouse.

Your book diagnosed some major problems in society, but the cure was more of the same worldview. It seemed like courtship was just a fancy name for dating.

In our society, and hence in our Christianity, romance is the context in which you get married. You fall in love and then get married. In the actual Bible, there is an implication that romance happens within the context of marriage. You get married and then fall in love. The former model leads to all the broken hearts and broken families you were concerned about, because it defines love as being something that “completes you” and “makes you feel whole”, and frankly it just sounds like idolatry. And we see today on pop radio an increase of songs which compare sex or “love” to the Holy Spirit, Church, salvation or something else sacred.

It is the Biblical model that leads to the actual definition of “love”, suffering quietly for someone else’s benefit without demanding recognition. Love is suffering for someone just because you love them, not because of how it makes you feel to love them. Actual love is largely unnoticed, because it doesn’t seek recognition.

All forms of Christianity have exchanged the Biblical model for the Bruno Mars model. I am a Greek Orthodox Christian, and while we are more resistant to progressivism, we are by no means immune. I see almost entirely the Bruno Mars model among Orthodox Christians, and most think I am insane, naive or misogynistic when I explain the Biblical model. I even saw your book in the parish library.

The purpose in marriage is not to have a great sex life. The purpose in marriage is to become a righteous person by learning how to suffer for the benefit of your spouse and children. That suffering (along with traditional, Biblical roles for husbands and wives) creates selflessness, because you are focused on what others need you to do and not on what you want, and that selflessness creates humility, and only the humble can know God. Saving sex for marriage facilitates the pair bonding that enables it.

Therefore, the primary thing you should look for in a spouse is a values set. Whether you date or court or do the Sicilian custom in The Godfather, the question you should be asking is “Will this person make me love Jesus more?” That is how you find a spouse. There are lesser but still relevant questions about age, health, looks, etc, but sharing the same taste in television or sunsets is not part of that. And when you have kids, children become most of your conversations anyway.

Until Christianity returns to the above model for marriage, there will be no decrease in divorce, premarital sex, bastardy, STDs, infertility due to delayed marriage, unnatural practices like oral sex, or collapsing birth rates.

I really think it’s insane we tell kids to save sex until marriage but also to delay marriage until you’re 25 with a college degree and a salaried job. God designed your body to begin making children at 15. By 30 (sometimes earlier) your body begins to transition out of procreation. Yet we tell kids in the bloom of puberty that God wants them to stuff it down for another ten years. People keep asking how to solve teen pregnancy, and the answer is you don’t; you divert teen pregnancy into the model God created.

Proverbs 5:18 “Rejoice with the wife of your YOUTH.”

I remember Dr Dobson saying you should date two years before getting married. Realistically, after three months you should have a pretty good idea what kind of person this is, and by a year you should know. Having all the features of a marriage without the sex isn’t a Biblical model, and it doesn’t set a good foundation for the marriage. Sex is supposed to be tied to romance. Churches severing sex from romance under the “date two years first” model only contributes to our society’s culture of meaningless casual sex, because both divorce sex from the emotions and commitment it is supposed to be attached to.

I feel like your concern about broken hearts was hitting on something not many people notice. After a point your heart has been broken so many times, you view the opposite sex as a consumable product. They are just another potential service that may meet the needs the previous ones failed to do. There’s nothing mysterious or impressive about the other person. Everything is calculable. And so your ability to love that person is diminished.

Another thing American Christianity really fails at is defining what it means to save sex for marriage. The vast majority of male christian virgins I have met had a serious pornography addiction. They warp their view of sex before they even experience it. In twenty years we will have a lot of millennials who have burned out their sex drives from stretching it past its natural limit. As St Paul said, sexual sins are the only sins you commit against yourself.

I think masturbation is worse than fornication. If you went out and had sex with a real human, at least it would be a real accomplishment and a real experience. And maybe you would discover that sex is not as magical as you had thought, and that new understanding would cause you to repent and learn humility. But by diverting that energy into masturbation, you never learn that lesson.

For women, the equivalent is those awful romantic comedies. Everything pornography does to men, Hollywood does to women. And the romances in these movies are as unrealistic as the sex in porn. Churches criticize sex in movies, but they never criticize romance, so we have about a century’s worth of women who think a Ryan Gosling will come along if they just wait long enough.

Your book wasn’t worthless, and it had some very legitimate criticisms, but it wasn’t able to give a practical solution, because it was born out of that same worldview that gave rise to the dating culture. It wasn’t able to step outside of it and make a full diagnosis. All it did was treat the symptoms.

This is a major flaw of evangelicalism. Every two or three years another John Piper or David Platt comes along and writes the new book that is supposed to change things, but everything stays the same until someone else comes along and writes a similar book. The root of this instability is that Christianity has become a consumable product. The Church exists as a service industry, and so it is more likely to tell people God wants them to have good self esteem than to tell them the television is the household idol. If anyone can set up a church and claim legitimacy, then for there to be a notion of a common Christianity, everything has to water down to the lowest common denominator.

Pastors bewail the divorce rate, but then they coddle divorcees with group therapy programs like DivorceCare and refuse to teach what the Bible actually says about how husbands and wives should treat each other.

The solution to the problem set forth in your book, that Christians don’t save themselves for marriage, both physically and emotionally, is for pastors to teach what a marriage should look like instead of teaching how to prepare for marriage. That’s what the Bible actually focuses on, and until pastors return to teaching the Bible, every variation on the purity movement will fail.

Only the Bible holds the keys to a good life. Any attempt to shoehorn it into our culture will fail. You can either serve God, or you can serve yourself, but you cannot serve both. Most Christians nominally assent to this, but then they continue paying for a cable subscription and sending their kids to public schools.

Evangelical Christians often pray for a third great awakening, but they never consider whether they deserve one. They panic that American Christianity is dying, but death is merely the wages of sin.

Happy World Hijab Day!

You know, for the remaining hour and twenty minutes. It’s never too late to do the right thing.

Today is World Hijab Day. All women are encouraged to wear a hijab to show solidarity with their Muslim sisters for the shame they face as minorities. Why? Because an activist said so. You don’t want to be racist, do you?

This is what feminists, non-whites, and stupid white people who think Drumpf is a raciss vote for. They literally vote to have more people with this values set to permanently move to our communities, run in our elections, teach your children’s schools, and have cornerstone careers like doctor or social worker. And then the Democrats say, “Oh isn’t it terrible how divided we are as a nation?”

Lolz At The Boy Scouts

The Boy Scouts of America recently announced that girls can join and earn all the conventional ranks, though the troops will be segregated by sex. Naturally the Girl Scouts USA organization is angry and has sued over a name change.

Do I weep over the loss of a proud American tradition such as the Scouts? Well yes, but more than that I’m laughing.

This is the inevitable path of feminism. Women hate on the Boy Scouts because it’s, by definition, patriarchal. So they decide to include girls so that everyone can benefit. Same as universities and golf clubs. And then the women are even more angry because women are never happy. Now the Boy Scouts are infringing on the Girl Scouts’s own tradition turf.

Serves the BSA right for catering to the progressives. They caved on the gay ban, and now they’re finding out what happens when you give in to progressivism. Traditional organizations should be traditional.

You cannot appease the progressives. The best thing to do is just ignore them and wait a few months for them to attack another organization. It certainly worked for the Washington Redskins.

Both scout organizations are declining, and both have embraced progressivism. Just as no secular country has ever sustained a birth rate, and just as HuffPo, BuzzFeed and Vice are making major layoffs, so too will the classic scouting organizations lose members as they focus on godless propaganda instead of wilderness survival skills.

*****

“But wait, Blair. The nation is embroiled over Donald Trump and the neverending soap opera about the shutdown. Why haven’t you written anything on that? Do you think the wall will get built?”

Are there not enough bloggers on that already? Yes, the wall will eventually get built because it’s too much a part of the political conversation. No, Trump did not cave by reopening the government.

Does anything about Trump make you think he will accept easy defeat, allowing his enemies to be the final winner and make fun of him?

The wall stuff will get taken care of in due time. Either that or the red states will secede. Meanwhile the Boy Scouts will discover that the Elks Lodge found out. When you admit women to your ranks, they start complaining about stupid things you never would have thought of. Then you have to change it, because if you tell women to suck it up they’ll just run to a higher authority. And so whatever time honored tradition about knife-throwing and cleaning trout will go away. Even though the boys are in separate troops, they will all have to follow the same standards. And then watch as troop memberships plummet even further?

Women already ruined public schools. Is there no place for boys to just be boys?