Ideologues think you're an animal

Depicted above is a dog whom I was sitting last week. For the purposes of this post, let us call him Sparky. Sparky is a puppy of some manner of sheepdog, so he is a hyperactive psycho who needs to run around for hours a day. I really like Sparky and I try to make him happy any way I can. For him, this involves letting him run around. This can be difficult because he thinks he can just run up to every human and get affection for trying to climb up their leg. It is positively adorable, but also awkward.

Over the course of this particular dogsitting shift, best job ever by the way, I thought about happiness and fulfilment, particularly in the context of dogs. It is very easy to make dogs, and many other animals, happy. Some permutation of food, space, and human affection usually does the trick. All their needs can be met by material things of this world.

Humans are not like that. We need more than just things. Humans need something above and beyond, something or someone to believe in. For most people, this is met by either religion or some cause du jour. Religion and spirituality are obvious examples of this, and the people who have neither will usually chase something else for meaning and purpose. The owner of this dog, for instance, is an atheist vegetarian. And boy is she devout to the vegetarianisms! It is impossible to even have her try even a bite of the awesome Al Pastor that my friend made. She is considerably stricter than any people of faith that I know.

All tangents aside, the point is that humans need something supernatural. St. Augustine said something to the effect of "Our hearts are restless until they rest in God". Other examples of this need for something more litter the arts, to a point where it becomes undeniable that this need is universal to humans. Every isolated tribe that explorers run into has some manner of spirituality going on, for instance. Animals, however, do not have this need. Give Sparky a park, some food, and an affectionate person, and he is as happy as he will ever be.

Not only do all humans share this need for the supernatural, but there is no animal that needs the supernatural. I would go so far as to posit that a need for something more is a good way to determine the humanity of a life form. But some would disagree with me. There are many people, some of them very influential, who believe that humans can be entirely satisfied by the material.

For instance, Marxist theory holds that all human problems are caused by inequality in this world, therefore allowing them to be ameliorated by creating equality, one mass grave at a time.

On the not-so-other hand, Marxism's equally insane but nominally opposite reaction, libertarianism, holds that all human problems are due to structures imposed on these humans. Leave them alone and they will spontaneously develop happiness and fulfilment.

As a matter of fact, most ideologies present their worldly proposals as the way to happiness. However, this world cannot make humans happy. Humans need the supernatural. Humans need God the Father of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, specifically. But that is not the point of this post. The point is that there is one category of creature that can be made happy by this world and its things: animals. Anyone who thinks you can be happy without the supernatural considers you an animal, effectively. This also explains why so many of the various ruling classes have such obvious disdain for the people they rule over. At some level or another, they consider their underlings to not even be fully human. This conviction, even if verbally denied, rears its ugly head sooner or later.

TLDR beware anyone who does not think you need the supernatural. They think of you as a mere animal and will treat you as such.

The whole ghey thing is a spell

Content warning: will be discussing sexual topics, please excersise due discretion.

Like everyone else, I usually do not think about sexuality a lot, especially not what other people do with other people. What do I care? That being said, I have recently taken an interest in the ghey situation. I wondered why everyone has strong opinions about something that objectively affects less people than are in actual danger of the Feng Shui Flu. It makes no sense, and yet they do. Allow me to list a few examples.

1. Most of the gheys themselves and various assorted identities are upset about being oppressed by the people who in fact largely ignore them.
2. Many religious people are upset at having the ghey pushed on their children in school and media, both of which they subject their children to for no discernible reason.
3. Sane men are upset at their healthy friendships being called 'gay' by people who consume too much media.
4. Some assorted identities folk do not want to be bothered by the spectacle, because they always get singled out, even though they are just people working through issues.

Yours truly falls into the third category, even though I try to not get too upset at the stupid people, mostly because whacking them with a shovel is illegal in this jurisdiction.

So why is everyone up in arms about the ghey thing? To answer this question, I went into the history of this situation. As the reader can imagine, any history books about this are too biased to be of actual use. They're always written by group 1 or 2 people, because the other groups cannot be bothered to write a lot about it. So I went to Google NGram, for an approximation of how much people talk about the ghey situation:

Hoping that this diagram goes up properly, there is a clear trend. Since 'gay' means happy in olde English, its use declines and then goes back up, largely in tandem with 'lesbian', 'homosexual', and 'LGBT', which themselves did not exist before the Antisexual Revolution of the late sixties. Similarly, 'queer' is first popular as a slur, then it goes out of fashion, only to come back as one of the assorted identities.

Here is my theory, inspired largely by my observations, the NGram above and Sacred Scripture: there is a gigantic spell, and it encompasses the whole ghey thing. As far as I can tell, there are three major lies that we are supposed to believe, and I shall refute them below.

The first major lie, in my analysis, is that Jesus Christ of Nazareth somehow approves of acting on ghey temptations. If this lie is ever presented, the Scriptural evidence is that Jesus never explicitly condemns it. Jesus also never explicitly condemns torture or arson, so let's get involved in those while we're at it, shall we? Obviously not. As is explicitly mentioned in the fifth chapter of St. Matthew's Gospel, Jesus came not to abolish the law, but to fulfil it. Furthermore, Jesus is really strict on the subject of adultery. In that same Sermon on the Mount, we read that even looking at other women is a form of adultery. There is no doubt that any sexual action with not your spouse is a sin. Additionally, everything about marriage in all of the Scriptures points to the obvious reality that marriage is between a man and a woman*. Hence, anything ghey whatsoever must be a sin.

The second major lie, whose adherents are plenty among the 'conservative' Baby Boomers, is that straight adultery is somehow one iota better than gay adultery. It is not. I understand that it makes them feel better about their numerous youthful indiscretions, but it simply is not. Again, Jesus' own words and every other command in the Bible are generalized for a reason. All of it is adultery. All of it is sin.

The third, and perhaps final big lie is that normal male friendship is somehow ghey. This is pushed in two ways: all manners of 'no homo' jokes and related stereotypes to discourage young men from bonding with other young men, as well as a crude historical revisionism where every famous figure in history who had a male friend must have been taking this friend behind a dumpster on the regular. It is perfectly normal for men to be friends their entire lives. As a matter of fact, a long, stable male friendship goes to suggest that there is nothing ghey going on, since anyone who knows practicioners of the ghey can tell you that these people do not have the stability for long relationships of any kind.

After all these observations, the logical questions is one of motive. Why would one encourage all manners of sexual immorality but discourage male friendship?
The reason for the first is found in statistics: the sexually immoral are considerably less fecund. There are statistics that one could look up, but it is much more expedient to compare the number of kids had by Muslim immigrants to those by ghey fake marriages. Ditto for rich liberals versus Mormons. Sexual immorality is a great avenue for the prince of this World to discourage God the Father's command to be fruitful and multiply. This would also explain why the ghey is bein pushed in institutions of this World, such as government schools. All worldly power structures are influenced by the prince of this World, so they will do some of his pathetic bidding.
An answer to the second is also in the Bible. Brother helped by brother is a fortress, or words to that effect would explain why the prince of this World wants to destroy male fraternity. They that hold to the Good, the Beautiful, and the True must be weakened if el diablo wants to get stuff done.

If this analysis is correct, which I believe it is, there is a simple antidote to all the damage wrought by the ghey spell. Form relationships with other men, build each other up, if you are a man. If you are a man or a woman or any of the assorted identities, find a spouse, get married, and be fruitful. Do not be too concerned with the various intricacies of the ghey spell. Identify its purpose and counteract that, effectively cutting off el diablo's weasely efforts at the root. Much Love!

* Take a peek at all these Biblical laws and commandments about marriage. If one want to argue that one can marry within the same sex, one has to demonstrate that every single one of these can be applied to same sex situations. I will not hold my breath.

How much can one blame unprotected women?

Content warning: I am writing about abuse and related topics. Discretion is encouraged

Between Harvey Weinstein, Joss Whedon, and many other media figures, there is always a contingent of people who like to blame the women who, more or less voluntarily, agreed to their mistreatment. I find this to be wrong, if understandable.

There are several reasons to blame women for their semi-willing participation. Often, proponents of this erroneous viewpoint will argue that the victims could have just torched their careers, or spoken out sooner. Both of these are factually correct, and certainly a standard that men should be held to. Emphasis on men.

The problem is that women are objectively the weaker sex, in more than just the physical sense, even though the physical sense is part of the problem. Absent specialized martial arts training and/or firearms, the most pathetic gamma weasel can overpower most women. It is highly unfair, but that is how bone density and upper body strength work. While physical violence is seldom part of these stories, it is always in the back of women's minds. Deep down, they understand that pretty much every able-bodied man can overpower them. They have every reason to be afraid of men, especially men with less than entirely noble intentions.

Secondly, predators perfect their craft. They certainly do not run around with 'I want to hurt you in intimate ways'  emblazoned on their T-shirts. What they do is they seek out vulnerable women, make them more vulnerable, and then move in for the atrocity. In a similar vein, women are very easy to manipulate, and consequently to prey on. There is a reason that most consumer advertising is aimed at women: it is much easier to deceive them long enough to make a sale.

It is for these reasons that I find it unfair, and more importantly useless, to blame the women for what they were pressured into. It may be true, but it is about as useful as blaming a deer for getting himself shot in hunting season; they did not stand much of a chance. There is a much more effective target for blame. Where were the fathers, cousins, and brothers of these women? Unprotected women will be targeted, because it is so easy to target them.

For further encouragement, consider the fact that sexual predators are fundamentally cowards. Their physique is also much closer to Ira's than to Chris Hemsworth's, so most men are able to intimidate them. The first time I caused a creep to back down, I was 14 and my sister, the intended mark, was 12. And I just stared at the weasel. He physically backed away from my then skinny teenager frame. It would be funny if one ignored how many women still fall prey to these creeps. I repeat: predators are fundamentally cowards. If you show up, they back down.

If you want to protect women, do not just blame them. Educate and protect them. Much love!

Death is a fear spell

 Very short post today. SocalGalactician Desoto opined that 'it ain't over til we are 6ft under'. This is excellent rhetoric, but, as a Christian, I must disagree on the dialectical level. We already know that death is not the end, but I would contend that every death, at its particular timing, is exactly part of God's plan, and here's why: the resurrections.

Any astute biblical student remembers that Jesus is hardly the only one to ever come back from physical death. There is also Lazarus, the son of the widow of Nain, and the daughter of Jairus, in the Gospels alone. This website has an excellent list if you wish to read up on it.

While there are many different lessons within each of the biblical resurrections, and every passage is worth studying and contemplating independently, there is a common thread throughout these: If God's plan involves you being alive in this world, then you will be very much alive. Granted, you may be wrapped in cloths and stumbling into the bewildered arms of your sisters, but you will be alive. God will not let you die, let alone stay dead, if His plan involves you being alive.

Therefore, death is not only not the end, it is also not worth being afraid of. If God wants you to participate in something in this world or experience it, you will be alive to do so. The only possible reason to fear death is that you have a few things to answer for when you pass from this world. In that case, a) God has already set up many opportunities for you to be forgiven, and b) you are well advised to take those opportunities as they show up. Much Love!

Crushing in local politics

As most of us know, barring highly improbable events, federal politics are more rigged than the original USS Constitution, and therefore not worth the wait in the polling line in November.

This leaves the state and local politics. Personally, I recommend getting into local politics, because the barrier to entry amounts to 'can you be bothered?' Allow yours truly to make the case for why you should very much be bothered, using some practical examples that may be relevant in the immediate future.

The County Recorder can decide whether or not Dominion Fraud Machines should be used. Expect many purple counties that allegedly voted for Biden to become very red if you get on this.

The Sheriff can decide whether or not to collect guns. He also gets some veto powers on Federal raids

The local zoning authorities can cause major headaches if Planned Parenthood or anyone else wants to set up shop.

I do not have to elucidate how much power local judges and juries wield, all of you just saw the election lawsuits and their miserable fate.

If you have any money to spare, local races are very cheap. As Jose Miguel on SG pointed out, as little as $400 gets your foot in the door.
If you do not have any money or opportunities to work more hours and make some, you can volunteer your time. This might be even better than donating, since local races do not have hierarchies. Every canvasser and poster-installer will personally meet the candidate, and have an opportunity to, erm, present them with certain points of view.

There are also other organizations worth considering, depending on the local political balance. Think major unions and religious groups.

Long term, consider God's first direct commandment to humanity: be fruitful and multiply. Nobody has to canvass neighborhoods on a bike in winter if you are the electorate and if all the serious candidates have shared a meal with you at some point.

It's time to live a less comfortable life

It is necessary to preface that I am no theologian, and that I have never read most of the Bible. My only claim to theological credibility is that nobody is paying me to say what I am saying. Considering the views on my blog, nobody would consider paying me to lie about Jesus, but that's neither here nor there. For I do not need to be a theologian to see that we as a society have put comfort before God for a while now.

In my profoundly biased and reliably un-researched opinion, there are several kinds of comforts that we place before God, sometimes on a daily basis. I would divide them into material, social, and spiritual comforts.

First, let us look at material comforts. There are quite many of these, such as driving a mile to the grocery store to get like ten pounds of groceries. Barring actually unhealthy weather or time pressure, you can walk that. Then there are the many comforts afforded by social media and Big Tech. The cult of free is a cult. Eating out is a comfort too. The list goes on. In my opinion, many material comforts can be avoided by able-bodied people, and some of them definitely should. A twenty minute walk to the grocery store is a great opportunity for prayer, among other things.

Then there are social comforts. A prime example of these would be to never argue with the SJW relative(s), with the greedy Boomer uncle, et cetera. This attachment to social harmony and comfort has convinced many freakshows that their insanity is not only moral, but also popular. Since they do not care about morality, letting them think they are socially accepted is comfortable, but it aids and abets their evil. Hint: when they find out that you read VP or that you voted for GEOTUS, they will hate you anyway. Might as well confront them about their insanity, show them that nobody agrees with their garbage.

Finally, we get to spiritual comforts. I would define these as every time we try to warp theology to be more comfortable about our own lives. There are many of these. WASPs love to pretend that the stock market is any less gambling than Vegas is. Left-leaning Christians love to pretend that Jesus does not have clear prescriptions about family and gender, I personally love to pretend that the words that I use and the media that I consume do not affect my spiritual life and that of my friends, et cetera.

I invite you, dear reader, to take a moment to consider things that you perhaps should not be doing, that are comfortable.

Now onto the reason to forego these comforts, which is twofold. The first is the rather obvious one that a good amount of these comforts are vices, even sins, so they should be avoided on their own merits, or rather their lack thereof.

The second reason is that I believe that God is about to, if not already in the process of, taking these comforts away from us, such that we may return our focus to Him and Him alone. In this way, God is doing our souls a favor, as He is clearing away some distractions. However, this entails that we will have to make do without these comforts. If we get used to discomfort now, we will be better equipped to love God and neighbor when the rest of the world goes cold turkey on the comfortable life. Good times create weak men, and the hard times will be shorter if we become strong men ahead of schedule. Much love!