Tag Archives: protestantism

Should Christian Women Wear Pants?

One of my guilty pleasures is watching Pastor Steven Anderson of Faithful Word Baptist Church on youtube. A decade ago my other guilty pleasure was watching Westboro Baptist Church parody music videos but I don’t think they make them anymore. I find them refreshingly subversive to modernity and liberalism.

I don’t enjoy watching, say, Paul Washer videos. Anderson is a dork and not particularly bright. But Washer is a full fledged sociopath. So the difference is it’s fun to see Anderson ranting and railing against stuff, often getting it wrong in a hilarious way because he’s not that smart and a huge dork. But it’s not fun watching Paul Washer because he’s a competent, sadistic sociopath. It’s the difference between watching a crazy old man yelling “get off my lawn” to a bunch of naughty kids vesus an evil psycopath psychologically torturing children.

Anderson (and the Westboros) were known for their “homophobia” but really that’s what they used for publicity and controversy. As Anderson notes, the fact is most people don’t approve of homosexuality and are absolutely repulsed by transsexualism. That’s exactly why the media promotes LGBT constantly (and also, relatedly, why they promote Jews, Israel and Holocaust culture so much – and also why there is so much Afrophilia.) People have to be browbeaten by this stuff because they naturally don’t like it.

While the media will tell you Anderson is “hateful” it’s not true, he’s actually kind of dorky, which makes it fun.

You have to understand the role that Pastor or Preacher had in American society. Before the era of mass education, the only educated person in a community was the Minister. Harvard University, in fact, all of the universities, were started to train ministers. In an entire town, the Bible was very often the only book that anyone had. So the Pastor was not just a religious figure, he was essentially the only intellectual.

The precise reason that religion lost so much cultural clout is because people started to read more than one book – and more than one person started to read. So Pastors lost their place as the only educated person in town.

In any case, Anderson tries to fulfill the role as “general intellectual” for his small congregation of working class, mostly (but not exclusively) Whites in Arizona. He’ll read the news for them, discuss issues, etc.

In this particular video, he actually does a somewhat credible job of trying to explain the difference between SEX and GENDER. He wants to tell his congregation why women shouldn’t wear pants, because while putting on a pair of pants doesn’t change a woman’s sex, it can be seen as a form of cross-dressing.

But he even gets this wrong, mostly because he’s a) not that smart and b) kind of a dork.

So he writes three columns on the whiteboard and has the congregation categorize different kinds of clothing into either for men, for women, or both. He starts with easy stuff: skirts, dresses, bras, pantyhose – all for women. Then, he asks about shoes, hats, gloves, tee-shirts, etc., and everyone agrees they are for both women and men.

So then he comes up to his big point, his coup de grace. How comes there’s nothing in the men’s column? He wants to point out that the verse in the Bible that says women’s shouldn’t wear “what pertains to a man” would have no meaning if there’s no clothing specifically for men.

But one of his congregation helpfully points out – TIES. Oops. Here’s a clear case. In modern, American society, men wear ties, and women don’t. But that ruins his entire point. His point was to say that women shouldn’t wear pants and pants are exclusively for men and if women wear pants there’s no point in the Bible verse.

But it’s OBVIOUS to everyone that ties are more stereotypically men’s clothing than pants. So what does Anderson do? Well, he’s a dork, and not that bright, so he mocks the guy who helpfully tried to help him out and give him a CLEAR example of something in our culture that is for men only: ties.

So Anderson says, well, he’s seen women wear ties. (WHAT?) I do remember a school uniform that had a kind of “tie” for women, it was a short thing, more like a ribbon really, that they would wear over their right breast. It was never popular and never caught on.

But Anderson just tries to ignore this to make his point, that women shouldn’t wear pants – and throws his earnest, helpful congregant under the bus – even tries to make fun of him. He’s just not that smart, because it was the obvious answer. Essentially, his entire sermon is begging the question.

Besides – physically speaking, it would make a lot more sense for men to wear something like kilts, wouldn’t it? I mean, men have a penis and testicles that literally hang down inches between their legs, and wearing pants scrunches them up in a very often uncomfortable way. Wearing tight underwear is actually bad for fertility – men who are having trouble getting their wives pregnant are often told to wear boxers to give their balls some breathing room. In fact, the entire biological purpose of a scrotum is to keep the testicles at a lower temperature than the rest of their body, thus, not killing sperm.

Did God design the male genitals incorrectly? Of course not, so men should wear kilts. Women’s vaginas are inside and their outer vulva doesn’t take up any room, making pants anatomically correct.

So the fact that men wear pants and women wear skirts is just cultural, in fact, biologically inappropriate.

Real Men Keep Their Balls Cool And Their Sperm Healthy To Impregnate Women!

So why do women wear skirts? It’s to signal sexually of course. It’s to make a show of “easy access.” You just have to hike up their skirt to penetrate them. So in theory, Christians who are against this sort of thing should point out that the modern American culture has it all wrong, and that CLEARLY it is more in tune with God’s creation – and sexual modesty and the “life culture” of fertility and natalism – for men to wear skirts – i.e., KILTS – and for women to wear pants, at least a piece of clothing that restricts access to their vaginas. Pants show less skin than skirts, after all.

Anderson, being not too smart and only reading one book, is actually THE WEAKEST LINK and exactly the reason why the sexual permissiveness and now transsexualism has been able to take hold. He – and people like him – were just outsmarted by the sexual revolutionaries. The irony is, of course, that if Anderson and the people like him were even slightly familiar with the context of the cultures of their own Bible, they would know that men actually did wear skirts – robes – in Biblical times and that women most certainly did NOT show their legs or signal easy access to their vaginas.

(White Anglo-American conservatives got stuck at Protestantism and left the culture to the most insane leftists instead of continuing our actual organic tradition, which should be post-Protestantism. The Enlightenment.)

Surprise, Surprise: Dyke Nuns Hate Little Boys

(((Curtis Yarvin))) may be a Jew, but his neo-reactionary movement attracted Catholics. In their attempt to demonize Whites, Protestants, Americans, the Enlightenment, and modernity, they have instead introduced a whole new generation to the reason we threw off the yoke of the Catholic church in the first place.

The “Catholic church abuse scandal” is really just the victims of the Catholic church growing up, and now that the Catholic church has lost its institutional power, and now that sexuality is understood biologically and scientifically, the shame conditioning that the Catholic church used for centuries to enslave Europeans doesn’t work anymore.

It’s obvious how homosexuals came to dominate the “celibate” Catholic institution.

Consider: one of the primary complaints about Muslim “refugees” and “immigrants” in the West in how they treat women. One only needs to look at their own culture to understand how different they are than us. For a Muslim boy, when he sees a girl his sexual attraction is coming from her. She is doing something that causes him to feel arousal, and since she is the actor, she is the seducer, it’s ok for him to rape her. He was just standing there, minding his own business, and this girl walked by, acting sexy, therefore she’s a whore. The only way a girl can not be a whore is to cover her entire body because if he can’t see her, she cannot seduce him.

So take a typical scenario in Ireland or America in the 1950s. A boy grows up, begins puberty, but unlike his peers, has no interest in girls at all. The idea of marrying a girl, having sex, and starting a family is off-putting to him. Since the Catholic church tells him that “lust” is a grave sin, and he himself is apparently free of this “lust,” he realizes that he is actually “more spiritual” than his peers. His uncouth, sexually obsessed peers who are obsessed with the girls now reaching puberty, are just not as “spiritual” as he is.

So, he joins the priesthood. He is assigned to work in a boy’s school.

There, all of a sudden these boys start acting sexy, or more specifically, acting gay. It’s not the priest’s own desires coming to the surface, it’s the boys who are acting gay, or acting seductively or acting sinfully. If one of the boys seduces him the priest merely goes to confession, eats a cracker, and all is forgiven.

Lesbians are of course different than gay men. So a girl begins puberty, but unlike her peers, these boys are not interesting at all. In fact, they are quite scary and even disgusting. While her girlsfriends are all crushing on various boys, she’s actually turned off by the whole affair. She can’t understand why her close friendships with her girlfriends are all being interrupted by their growing awareness of boys.

She must just be “more spiritual” than her peers. She is, in a sense, on a “higher spiritual plane.” Unlike the “earthly” desires of her girlfriends, she’s only interested in the “pure” and “spiritual” things.

So, she becomes a nun, and is assigned to a orphanage. There, she has to take care of these disgusting, rowdy, violent, and gross boys, with their little penises popping underneath their pants all the time. It’s up to her, a “truly spiritual” woman without these “desires of the flesh” to whip these boys into line. She, in fact, quite enjoys it when these boys feel shame for their disgusting “lust,” their “sin.” It’s actually quite a power trip, watching these proud boys become ashamed of themselves. For the ones that are defiant, beatings work well. As the “Good Book” says, spare the rod, spoil the child.

https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/christinekenneally/orphanage-death-catholic-abuse-nuns-st-josephs

It was a late summer afternoon, Sally Dale recalled, when the boy was thrown through the fourth-floor window.

“He kind of hit, and— ” she placed both hands palm-down before her. Her right hand slapped down on the left, rebounded up a little, then landed again.

For just a moment, the room was still. “Bounced?” one of the many lawyers present asked. “Well, I guess you’d call it — it was a bounce,” she replied. “And then he laid still.”

Sally, who was speaking under oath, tried to explain it. She started again. “The first thing I saw was looking up, hearing the crash of the window, and then him going down, but my eyes were still glued—.” She pointed up at where the broken window would have been and then she pointed at her own face and drew circles around it. “That habit thing, whatever it is, that they wear, stuck out like a sore thumb.”

Children are amazing in the sense they will believe pretty much anything you tell them. After all, you’re an adult and children are evolved to mimic older humans. The central image of your religion is a man being tortured and the central story is of a man being murdered for the sins of the world so it’s the “sinful” child’s fault.

Sister took hold of Sally’s ear, turned her around, and walked her back to the other side of the yard. The nun told her she had a vivid imagination. We are going to have to do something about you, child.

Like sociopaths, eventually these predatory homosexuals begin to recognize each other and that’s when they start working together:

A 1998 UK government inquiry, citing “exceptional depravity” at four homes run by the Christian Brothers order in Australia, heard that a boy was the object of a competition between the brothers to see who could rape him 100 times. The inquiries focused primarily on sexual abuse, not physical abuse or murder, but taken together, the reports showed almost limitless harm that was the result not just of individual cruelty but of systemic abuse.

The Roman Empire, eventually Christianized, swept through Europe, enslaving the “heathens” and creating these institutions. At the forefront were these “celibates” that did not have normal sexuality. They were, perhaps, even the first victims of Catholic sexual repression. Unable to accept that they were the perverts, that they were the reprobates, that they were the sinners, they projected that onto others, even children.

Since these children and “heathens” did not feel ashamed of their naked bodies and their natural sexuality, that just proved how the “celibate” Catholics were of a “higher spirituality” and it was their duty to beat – and rape – the devil out of these Europeans.

From the proto-Protestants like the Lollards and the Hussites, to the Reformation itself, eventually Europeans rebelled against these evil, psychopathic Catholics, rejected the “celibate” homosexual priests, the “celibate” lesbian priestesses, and demanded that Church institutions be led by normal, married men and women.

The first mistake that Americans made was to adopt the African custom of slavery, a mistake that harms America to this day. The second mistake Americans made was to import millions of Catholics, mostly in the 1800s, and surprise, surprise, along with them came Jews. It was only a matter of time until they joined up with each other to attempt to re-enslave the real Americans, the posterity of the Protestant Founding Fathers.

Hence, (((Curtis Yarvin’s))) “neo-reactionary” movement and the sick Catholics that follow him.

Which Way, White Man?

https://infogalactic.com/info/The_Kallikak_Family

The Kallikak Family: A Study in the Heredity of Feeble-Mindedness was a 1912 book by the American psychologist and eugenicist Henry H. Goddard. The work was an extended case study of Goddard’s for the inheritance of “feeble-mindedness,” a general category referring to a variety of mental disabilities including mental retardation, learning disabilities, and mental illness. Goddard concluded that a variety of mental traits were hereditary and society should limit reproduction by people possessing these traits.