On the dreadful consequences of sodomy to a state

Republicans always seem to be shocked and confused when I state I'm not a Republican because I'm not a Socialist. If I wanted to be in a party full of Socialists in denial I'd just join the Democrat party and have such in abundance. I mean, if I'm willing to accept Socialism, then why join a party of tepid Socialists when I can just dive in head first with the Democrats? Because the only difference between the GoP and DNC today, is that the former prefers to acclimate itself to Socialism like some old lady slipping into a cold swimming pool an inch at a time, as opposed to the DNC who waded into the pool well before the GoP, and having long been acclimated now sits at the bottom embracing full blown Marxism.

As I have said for some time The GoP are Fabian Socialists. For those of you ignorant of that appellation, it falls to me yet again to educate you.

Simply put, Fabian Socialists (who might just as appropriately be dubbed "Gramscian" Socialists) prefer the incremental implementation of Marxist principles, as opposed to the rapid and violent implementation of such that occurred under the Soviet and German Socialists in the early twentieth century. Like numerous other pernicious socio-political maladies of Europe it has crossed the sea and infected the United States as well. Some will erroneously conclude that the former is better than the latter, because it abstains from the bloodshed endemic to such, but those lot would be misguided. Because the former results in the same thing as the latter, the only difference being in how it arrives there. Of the two the former is the far more insidious, because rather than comprising a conspicuous front against which to organize opposition, it advances itself through a gradual, if not surreptitious, creep into the collective minds of the populace, consequently being the far more difficult to recognize and defend against.

Whereas the latter might seek to peremptorily impose its will in bounding strides, the former seeks only a modicum of its agenda at a time in an interminable procession, which affords to it a veil of reasonableness it the eyes of the ignorant and facile. It is far more effective to ask people to make perceptibly small concessions than to demand large ones. People are reluctant to jump from A to Z, but often will step from A to B, then to C, and then to D and so on, until they arrive at Z if made to perceive each step as small and isolated from the rest. Thus, whereas the latter might demand the decriminalization of pedophilia from the outset, the former demands first the decriminalization of sodomy, then the establishment of civil unions, then the establishment of "same sex marriage," etc., knowing that people are far more amenable to taking small steps than significant leaps into uncharted socio-political territory. Whereas the latter offends the conscience, and is inclined to animate a powerful counter-revolutionary spirit, the former lulls the conscience and circumvents that spirit.

Simply put, the latter is the socio-political equivalent of tossing the frog into a boiling pot of water, whereas the former is the incremental raising of the temperature. And this is how the left has transformed America. The Democrat party fell first, and became Fabian Socialists many decades ago, and progressed into the hardcore Marxists we see today. And the GoP follows a few decades behind them. (As does America follow a few decades behind Europe in its descent into neo-pagan Socialism.) And this is easily illustrated through the Republican party's evolution on "same sex" marriage.

For years the GoP the was a more traditional holdout and alternative to the DNC on moral issues. But over time, as incrementalism crept its way into the party that began to change, reaching its most conspicuous and recent manifestation in the 2016 presidential election, when a party that had been opposing the Socialist agenda began openly advancing it.

A candidate obviously cannot control who endorses him, but he most certainly can control whom he endorses. And under Donald Trump the GoP lunged farther left than it's ever been on multiple issues from health care to sexual conduct. (The latter hardly being a surprise given the new head of the GoP is a man caught on tape openly admitting to groping womens' vaginas. It's an existential truth that a profligate man will tend to be more tolerant of profligacy in others, vice of the same type in particular, and therefore more amenable to embracing an agenda that seeks the acceptance of such. A man who engages in sexual misconduct will, more often than not, feel an affinity for others that do the same and, rather than opposing them, will become an apologist for them as a means of indirectly absolving himself, knowing the same sophistry that exculpates another will through extension exculpate him as well.)

As I said then, if I am willing to accept these things in a Republican candidate, then I might as well vote Democrat. Because support of homogenital sex acts is the Socialist Democrat platform. Am I to simply ignore that the GoP's platform has become the Socialist Democrat's platform in multiple ways? According to Trump supporters, yes. But to affirm the GoP's acceptance of such, is to take yet another incremental step, which will promptly be followed by another, and then another, ad infinitum.

One might be asking what do same sex relationships have to do with Socialism? If you have to ask that question, you're likely already a practicing Socialist to some (probably significant) degree, because the support of homogenital sex acts is a core pillar of modern Socialism.

And one now often sees the incrementalist agenda on display even in the GoP, through the delusive notion that it's in the interest of preserving our civil society, to accept these changing cultural mores; that it's even our duty as Christians to do so.

As discussed previously on this blog, American liberty is rooted in and dependent upon Christian morality, and thus in order to make Americans not free you must first de-Christianize them. What is the above article arguing, if not that we must accept a society and govenrment, predicated upon something other than Christian values?

It's simply false to believe that the de-Christianizing of society requires making everyone an atheist. Advancing other religions, or essentially any other ethos period, also serves this purpose. Socialism is perhaps more than anything, at its core, the pursuit of the abolition of private property, and many other religions like it do not codify respect for private property as does Judaism and Christianity in the Decalogue. (This why you consistently see leftists supporting every religion but Christianity domestically, and siding with the Islamic hordes that seek to annihilate the state of Israel abroad. These two belief systems represent the greatest, if not only, obstacle to global Socialism.) If a person cannot be completely de-Christianized, then simply convincing them that the laws of God are not applicable, is an equally effective alternative. The antinomian adhering to a simplistic vitiation of Christianity, who believes that Christianity is merely about "loving" people, is no impediment to the abolition of private property (or any other vice) whatsoever.

"Athenian fathers would pray that their sons would be handsome and attractive, with the full knowledge that they would then attract the attention of men and 'be the objects of fights because of erotic passions.'" - Love among the Ruins: The Erotics of Democracy in Classical Athens.

It has been stated before, and cannot be emphasized enough, that the acceptance of sexual misconduct, e.g., sodomy and transvestism, is not a "progression." It's a regression. These behaviors were common in ancient pagan civilizations, and in some became so pervasive, it resulted in their destruction from disease or conquest. The Bible explicitly mentions them in reference to Egypt and Canaan for example, when commanding the Hebrews not to adopt their customs.

"After the doings of the land of Egypt, wherein ye dwelt, shall ye not do: and after the doings of the land of Canaan, whither I bring you, shall ye not do: neither shall ye walk in their ordinances. [....] Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination. [...] Ye shall therefore keep my statutes and my judgments, and shall not commit any of these abominations; neither any of your own nation, nor any stranger that sojourneth among you." - Lev 18: 3, 22, & 26.  

"The woman shall not wear that which pertaineth unto a man, neither shall a man put on a woman's garment: for all that do so are abomination unto the LORD thy God." - Deu 22:5. 

Sodomy was likewise common in ancient Greece and Rome. The Roman Emperor Nero, who bitterly hated Christianity and brutally repressed the early church, had what today would be considered a "transgender" wife; a boy he favored, had castrated, dressed as a woman, and even called by a woman's name. Thus we are living in a perverse dichotomy in America, in which we move ever forward technologically, but backward culturally and morally. In the latter instance we have regressed by millennia. And it has been my long standing contention that our society would have already perished, due to the latter, if not for the former. Advances in modern medicine have allowed us to mitigate, to a significant degree, the damage pervasive vice would have otherwise wrought, and to thus far escape the fate of the ancient pagan states. But medicine has its limits. The boundless audacity of neo-pagan Socialists has made it abundantly clear, through devising ever more daring and inventive ways to butcher the human body, that it intends to find those limits and continue beyond them with all the tools "modern" medicine places at their disposal.

Some will have argued at this point that the above Biblical proscription is from Leviticus, and therefore no longer applicable, as the "law" is no longer applicable. And even were that true, which it's not, the disposition of Leviticus is affirmed in the New Testament, which unequivocally establishes as condign the judgment mandated in the Old Testament.

"For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet." - Rom 1:26 & 27.

So, regardless of what imaginary "dispensation" in which you believe yourself to be living, there is no Biblical basis for the acceptance of sodomy or transvestism. Indeed, if you have accepted these things, far from being a good Christian you have already renounced God. The "grace" of God does not permit these things, and the Bible explicitly condemns the incrementalist agenda.

"For certain individuals whose condemnation was written about long ago have secretly slipped in among you. They are ungodly people, who pervert the grace of our God into a license for immorality and deny Jesus Christ our only Sovereign and Lord." - Jde 1:4.

You either accept that God does not change (Mal 3:6, Jas 1:7, Heb 13:8) , and that these practices are "abomination" because "the judgments of the Lord are true and righteous altogether" (Psa 19:9), or you cease to be a Christian as a result of adopting a pagan sexual ethos. The latter, as the Bible and history plainly illustrate, is the death knell of a civilization.

"If we reflect on the dreadful consequences of sodomy to a state, and on the extent to which this abominable vice may be secretly carried on and spread, we cannot, on the principles of sound policy, consider the punishment as too severe. For if it once begins to prevail, not only will boys be easily corrupted by adults, but also by other boys; nor will it ever cease; more especially as it must thus soon lose all its shamefulness and infamy, and become fashionable, and the national taste; and then depopulation and national weakness, for which all remedies are ineffectual, must inevitably follow; not perhaps in the very first generation, but certainly in the course of the third or fourth. It is, moreover, a substitute for marriage [...] and, as such, it will be resorted to by the man, who does not choose to maintain a wife and a family. [...] In this way, it diminishes the number of marriages; and when that takes place from such a cause, (we need only call to mind the state of Rome, in this point, under the emperors,) it becomes impossible to reintroduce them into fashion. [...] It is farther to be observed, that it is always accompanied with an increasing aversion to the female sex, which generally ends in absolute impotence. But its direful consequences are not confined to one sex: for the other sex, as they must, for the most part, either remain unmarried, or be betrayed into marriages where their natural desires are not duly gratified, soon learn to avenge themselves by the practice of unnatural lusts [...] and thus they, in their turn, conceive an abhorrence of their husbands, and become perfectly profligate; and the consequence is, what we also see in the case of Rome under the emperors, a still greater paucity of marriages, and, of course, a still greater depopulation of the country. To these evils may be added yet another, viz. that the constitutions of those men, who submit to this degradation, are, if not always, yet very often, totally destroyed, though in a different way from what is the result of whoredom. Whoever, therefore, wishes to ruin a nation, has only to get this vice introduced; for it is extremely difficult to extirpate it, where it has once taken root, because it can be propagated with much more secrecy than whoredom, which generally betrays itself by children; and when we perceive that it has once got a footing in any country, however powerful and flourishing, we may venture, as politicians, to predict, that the foundation of its future decline is laid, and that, after some hundred years, it will no longer be the same populous and powerful country it is at present." - John David Michaelis, Commentaries on the Laws of Moses, Vol. IV.

It is a common thing to hear self-professed conservatives lament the abject effeminacy and impotency of "millennials," against which all their contrived remedies are ineffectual, but quite uncommon to ever hear them acknowledge or take any responsibility for what caused it; their acceptance of sodomy. "Safe spaces" are the natural consequence of embracing the feminizing practice of sodomy, which as Michaelis describes, will ultimately creep into every facet of life robbing a nation of its vigor. 

It is also common for people to argue there's been no deleterious consequence to the acceptance of sodomy, completely oblivious to the fact that essentially everything Michaelis describes (over two hundred years ago) above has come to pass. When sodomy was decriminalized in western civilization, it soon not only ceased to be shameful but became fashionable, and is now even seen as preferable to the traditional Judeo-Christian nuclear family. Society rapidly transitioned from one in which sodomy was ubiquitously condemned, to one in which opposition to sodomy is anathematized. 

Consequently marriage rates, and therefore birth rates, are in declension throughout western civilization. It is an existential maxim that any society that promotes stagnation as equal to, or even superior to fecundity, has by rebelling against the Biblical edict to "be fruitful and multiply" fashioned its own noose. The Socialists of the United States and the west in general, having been irrevocably hobbled by a pernicious extinctionism pervading every rank of society, seeks ever more benefits subsidized by the public treasury while producing ever fewer taxpayers to fund it.

Supporters of homogenital sex acts will give passionate (and invariably hopelessly obtuse) defenses of their misguided sentiments. This is not a matter of passion. It's a matter of math and physiology. Those nations which reduce procreation to an ancillary concern, whilst actively promoting their own demise through disease ridden behaviors and self-imposed mass genocide, are doomed to extinction. When the laws of men come into contention with the laws of nature, though mans' genius may forestall it for a time, the latter will eventually always prevail.

And in efforts to compensate for this declining virility the United States has, much like the Romans in their folly (to which Michaelis repeatedly alludes), resorted to the mass importation of foreigners of dubious loyalty into the Republic, and even those with none at all, serving only to further facilitate and accelerate their own demise. Across the Atlantic it's Islam engorging itself upon the impotent husk of de-Christianized Europe, which having generally embraced its own demise through "multiculturalism," offers resistance of the most tepid sort if any at all. America is not far behind. Within a few decades we could suffer staggering demographic changes, as these contingents of society having superior birth rates eclipse us, and assuming the majority of stations within government, begin promptly wielding those stations to achieve for themselves greater prominence and to accelerate our declension further still. And in this they will not only not be opposed, but ardently supported domestically by a large contingent of perfidious guilt mongers, born of apostasy, moral apathy, and dead to all patriotic sentiment.

Michaelis' assertion that "once (sodomy) begins to prevail, not only will boys be easily corrupted by adults, but also by other boys," has likewise been vindicated. It's now common to see television and film shows that depict boys being sexually corrupted by men and other boys.

And before you resign yourself to the misconception that this is merely the motif of fictional cinematic works, my friend Ryan Sorba produced a video in which he caught numerous "homosexuals" admitting to being molested as boys, by men or other boys, and/or having molested others themselves, unequivocally evincing that in this instance fiction mirrors reality as much as vice versa.

I would post Ryan's video for you, but it has been repeatedly taken down, due to leftist demands that his content be censored.

The physiological evidence against homogenital sex acts is a priori and incontrovertible. The proof that "same sex" attraction is a psychological disorder, is indisputably evinced by the fact that regardless of to whom a person claims to be attracted, their body is by default physiologically heterosexual. The testicles of the "gay" man produce sperm cells that coalesce with the female egg cell, achieved exclusively through vaginal intercourse, just as those of the heterosexual man. Which is why I have long said that "homosexuals" are hardware (body) with faulty software (psyche). No matter to what a person is attracted (psychologically), their body is inherently heterosexual, and designed to achieve procreation with the opposite gender. Notions like "gender identity" and "orientation" are neo-pagan Socialist derived myths. Again, in order for "sexual orientation" to have any physiological validity a person would have to be able to procreate with someone of the same gender. Something we obviously cannot do. In order to circumvent this fact one would have to discard natural physiological parameters altogether, so naturally, that precisely what leftists have done.

It should be immediately apparent that this has ramifications far beyond mere sexual activity and relationships. If the purpose and function of the reproductive organs may be arbitrarily defined by the person to whom they're attached, what's to stop them from doing so with any other organ? What is to stop someone from saying their liver circulates blood through the body? What is to stop a patient, who identifies his kidney as a uterus, from demanding his physician treat him accordingly? And given that medicine has already conceded that sexuality and self-identity are not immutably rooted in, and wed to physiology in regard to sodomy and "transgenderism" - both of which are demonstrably insalubrious behaviors - upon what consistent intellectual grounds may they refuse the patient's demands in such a scenario if (when) it arises?

Though the benighted and myopic have failed to discern this eventuality, the precedent for it has been set, mitigated only by mans' creativity or lack thereof. And having discarded the premise of transcendent human physiology, by accepting homogenital sex acts, its supporters have obliterated any intellectual opposition to, and paved the way for, whatever new abominations may come. Today it's men castrating themselves that they might pretend to be women. Tomorrow, God only knows. 

Even without Michaelis' detailed articulation of the consequences of embracing pagan vice, however, the evidence of its pernicious socio-political ramifications are all around us. Truly, one must be blind not to discern them.

The above is but one of now seemingly countless examples of the assiduous assault on Christian liberty. America was colonized, and the United States established, with the specific intent of allowing virtually unfettered religious freedom, and to prevent precisely what happened to these two people from ever occurring. But a benighted amnesiac populace, utterly estranged to their Judeo-Christian roots, is oblivious to that truth. To them this is not the resurgence of the same pagan tyranny that brutally repressed the early Church two millennia ago. That truth has been purged from their collective consciousness. They are cognizant of only the events of their own lifetimes. And based upon that diminutive frame of reference reality becomes distorted. In the eyes of the historically ignorant the bakers are the oppressors, vestigial remnants of a Christian culture of intolerance. They must be punished for infringing upon the non-existent right to homogenital sex acts claimed by their "homosexual" victims. That Judeo-Christian intolerance was a response to millennia of intolerance, repression, and genocide at the hands of sodomy practicing pagans is lost on them. 

As Christianity declines throughout western civilization, the same depravity innate to the ancient pagan world has reemerged and flourished in proportion, along with the pagan tyranny of which it's a component. The "same sex" movement has consistently been the spearhead against legitimate Constitutional liberties like religion and speech, both of which have receded in proportion to the advancement of the same sex agenda, and are now in the nascent stages of being criminalized. The apostates of America in 2017, are leaving us with a country in which the Christian not only doesn't have the protection of the United States Constitution, but not even those afforded by the Edict of Milan in 313 A.D. And this will only continue to worsen as our incremental slide into neo-pagan Socialism persists. 

I for one will not accept Socialism no matter what euphemistic appellation is applied to it. I will not embrace in a Republican what I spent eight years rebuking in a Democrat. I will call Socialism, Socialism, whether it be advanced by Bernie Sanders, Hillary Clinton, or Donald Trump. God did not send the Apostles out into the world to prostrate his laws to pagan rulers. And make no mistake about it, thanks to the dereliction of the church, we were living under pagan rule once again. Indeed, our society is in some ways arguably worse than the pagan toilets of antiquity, seeking to maim the bodies of even its children (at ever younger ages) through "gender reassignment."

"Young people who take these hormones will need lifelong monitoring for dangerous side effects, including cancer, liver damage, diabetes, stroke, and heart attack."

So depraved has modern America become, that in all its "progressive" wisdom," it's willing to accept subjecting its children to cancer, stroke, heart attacks; afflictions that normally impact children the least. All because "feelings" now take precedence over logic (or even sanity) in America. The Doctors have been de-Christianized too; apostasy being the only explanation for any physician who would perpetrate such butchery upon a child.

Anyone who considers this "progress" is a moron (or a demon). We're living in a kakistocratic dystopian nightmare pulled straight from the pages of a horror novel. One which, given the pervading moral lethargy induced by the left, few can are or willing to acknowledge. Everyone's just watching as spectators, like eunuchs in some orgy laden harem, as ever greater spectacles of depravity unfold one after another. It's enough to gag a maggot. But "progressive" America long ago lost its gag reflex through assiduous exposure to filth and perfidy. They've had excrement held under their noses for so long at this point the smell no longer offends them. 

Ultimately, if we are to restore our Christian liberties, we must first restore our Christian aversion to vice. Those things which offend God must come to offend us once again also. Because the Biblical penalty for failing to share God's aversions is abundantly clear.