Sunday, 6 June 2010

The God I will not Follow

I fear that this posting will lose me some supporters, but I hope that most of those who read here will continue to enjoy what I write, even if they dislike this posting. I do respect the fact that some of you will have have genuine and strongly held views on this subject, I do not wish to offend you but must express my own view.

I really did not want to get into the debate about homosexuality, as it is not one of my issues, and is something I consider irrelevant by comparison to the serious problems we face. However, as since my posting last week regarding David Laws, a number of people have written telling me that I either have to condemn homosexuality or remove the Christian symbol from my blog. I do not accept that, so I guess I will now have to address the issue.

I find the suggestion that you can not be a Christian without believing in the literal truth of every line in the Bible and forming my attitudes and principles on every urging and utterance in a holy text, written by many men over many centuries, to be quite ludicrous.

There are people who can find support for any number of genuinely held belief's in the bible, the Jehovah's witnesses find a prohibition on blood transfusions, others believe the bible tells them to handle serpents. For many centuries people found support for slavery within the pages of the good book, none claim that now, yet the passages they once quoted have not gone away.

It is a confusing time when on one side so called Christians are telling me my political views exclude me from the church, whilst Nationalists are saying almost the same thing about my social views.

I am not a religious theologian and do not claim to be one, and it is certainly true that homosexuality is condemned in the bible, especially in the old testament. However, within for instance the intemperate rantings of Leviticus, it is possible to find condemnation for any number of human activities, and in any event if I am to live my life, and form my beliefs and attitudes on the teachings of the Old Testament, must I also sell any daughter I may have into slavery, and then slaughter an Ox?

When Christ came into this world he freed us from the Strictures of the old covenant, and the New Testament is significantly less preoccupied with the subject of homosexuality than the Old Testament was. Indeed, I would go further than that, there remain serious questions as to the accuracy of the translation to the references made in both Timothy and in Corinthians, leaving us really with the very clear statements in Romans I, where both gay and heterosexual promiscuity is soundly condemned.

It would be very easy to see that in isolation, and build beliefs on that condemnation, but that would be to ignore the fact that Romans I is followed by Romans II, the opening passage of which, urges us not to judge others lest we be judged, a sentiment repeated in Matthew 7.1, and one which I think is the issue.

I do not believe that sexuality is a matter of choice, if it were possible for someone to choose to be gay, then it would be possible for me to choose to be a lesbian, yet that is not possible. I know for certain that were I to be imprisoned or shipwrecked on a desert Island with the most beautiful and desirable of women we would, throughout our time together, remain just good friends.

I do know that men are different, but even those who indulge in same sex unions whilst for instance in prison for the need of human companionship and release, return immediately to a heterosexual lifestyle as soon as it is available. Yet other men, and women, live homosexual life styles despite the fact that a much easier, heterosexual, existence is available to them and they often do so in circumstances and countries where their lifestyle presents them with huge difficulties and huge dangers.

I do not believe they would do so if they had a choice.

In honesty do those who angrily insist that it is a choice, really believe that it is a choice which is open to them?

For guidance we could turn to the words of our Lord on the subject of homosexuality, but alas we find none, in the three years of His ministry on Earth, He never referred to the subject, had it been such a big deal surely He would have done so. The closest our Lord came to mentioning Human sexuality at all was His encounter with the adulterous woman at the well, John 4:7-41, when He urged her to “sin no more”. However, far more famously, once again in relation to adultery, He said to the Pharisees who were about to stone a woman to death “Let he who is without sin cast the first stone” John 7:53-8:11

Others who came before and after Jesus, and who claim to speak in his name, have condemned this and many other things, but as far as sexuality is concerned, it was not a subject Our Lord found it necessary to address.

The same can not be said for Mohammed, who viewed sex as a major showstopper. The Qur'an, which Muslims claim was written by the Prophet himself, has a heck of a lot to say about sex, including many specific references to gay sex, such as the enchanting:

Qur'an 7.80 – 84 : For ye practice your lusts on men in preference to women: ye are indeed a people transgressing beyond bounds.... And we rained down on them a shower (of brimstone)"

From the Hadith:

Abu Dawud (4462) - The Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) said, "Whoever you find doing the action of the people of Loot, execute the one who does it and the one to whom it is done.".

al-Tirmidhi, Sunan 1:152 - [Muhammad said] ""Whoever is found conducting himself in the manner of the people of Lot, kill the doer and the receiver."


Abu Dawud (4448) - "If a man who is not married is seized committing sodomy, he will be stoned to death." (Note the implicit approval of sodomizing one's wife however).

It is in relation to their obsession with what consenting adults do in bed that some fundamentalist Christians sit at the same table as fanatical Islam, for it is sometimes hard to tell the difference in terms of rhetoric. Certainly the black bigots of the African Church, who claim to be Christians and who take their place at the Lambeth Conference seem to happily contemplate the active persecution of homosexuality to the extent even, in the case of Ugandan Christians of executing offenders, as occurs in Islamic lands.

It is when one finds one's self on the same side as those who cheerfully hang teen aged boys from cranes in public squares before baying and cheering crowds, as happened recently in Iran, it is time to start re-evaluating our beliefs.

I am a happily married woman, with one son, and another addition to our family due in November. I hope very much that my children will grow up to be heterosexual. However, if they do not, that will not be their choice, and I will not condemn then, neither will I condemn any other mother's son or daughter for something they could not change.

This blog has never promoted homosexuality, and this post does not do so either, it simply explains why I have also never attacked it.

Please do not write in telling me what I should think or what my views and my faith should be. You are entitled to your beliefs and so am I.

I shall answer to my maker for my view on this and many other things. Many will believe that I will have other, more important things, such as my views on race, to answer for. They would certainly view my racial stance as considerably less Christian.

However, that exposes a fundamental misunderstanding of me and what I am writing about. I am a Nationalist, not through hatred, but through love.

When libraries ban my blog for “promoting hate” they libel me, for I hate nobody.

I do not attack a black man for being black, say that being black is a bad thing and that he should cease to be so. I do not wish him ill in any way, indeed I wish that he and his culture thrive, for I believe that the world will be a lesser place without him and his culture, in his own land.

However, the difference is that I also care about my own culture and my own people who I also wish to thrive and live on, and that is not going to happen in the face of mass immigration and the lies which are being told about us.

That is why I oppose mass immigration and seek to correct the lies which are told.

My culture my people, and the future of my children are under deadly threat, I love them, so I fight for them, not because I hate anyone else.

That is all that matters, the rest is an irrelevance.

There are two threats which matter, one is Marxism and the other is Islam, they are the two political forces which are combining to destroy us, and their weapons are mass immigration and lies. All other issues blind us to that threat and are trivial because it is not they who will destroy us.

I am aware that some Marxists promote homosexuality as a further means of destabilising society, but I have yet to see evidence of large numbers opting for a gay lifestyle who do not already have those instincts, and anyway the left is doing that a lot less now they have buddied up with Islam.

Frankly, if I have gay readers, they are welcome here because we are all in this together and the God who would condemn them is not my God.

The others, who I also welcome, and who I hope will continue to read here, are entitled to their views, I respect their right to those views, please respect mine, and let me concentrate on the real issues we face, because they are what I write about.


Anonymous said...


I fully understand where you're coming from. Some homos in the past have been very entertaining on the box eg Kenneth Williams Charles Hawtrey and so on. But look what became of them. It's tragic.

Can I ask you if an adult male of an affable, unassuming character were to lure your 16 year old son into a 'relationship' of sorts and ultimately sodomise him consensually or otherwise, do you honestly believe you would maintain a 'neutral' view of this trendy vice of 'being gay'?. Think about it - it's forced anal penetration un-natural at best... at worst AIDS inducing!

I am aware that anal sex is promoted gratuitously in a variety of 'trendy' (sic) media publications as well as on the web, as is inter-racial and beastiality with animals.

Only the weak and the very young VULNERABLE are susceptible... to these insidious progressive "norms"...

Sarah Maid of Albion said...

I would not want an adult sodomising any child of mine or anyone elses, be they made or female.

At present in this country the much greater problem we have is the sexualising of young girls, and the grooming of under aged girls by groups of Asian and black males, who then pass the girls around among their group. (Sodomy is also big in that area too)

That is, at least, as bigger problem, however, I would not think of condemning heterosexuality because of it.

Birdman said...

A well written article. My views are different to yours and I respect your views. As you said, we all have to answer to G-D one day. To make this blog into a pro vs con on the subject will take away the real meaning of the blog.

I will continue reading your blog with an open mind.

Keep up the good work.

Sarah Maid of Albion said...

Thank you Birdman

I appreciate that. I think I will keep this post here for about 24 hours, and then mover it to the back up blog, otherwise it will become a distraction from what I am trying to do with this blog.

It is one of these subjects, like global warming which is impossible to write about on a nationalist blog without provoking a disproportionate reaction.

It is a very peripheral issue and not one which I would not one I wish to spend time responding to said...

I am persuaded by Greg Cochran's theory that male homosexuality is a rare side effect of a common childhood disease.This side effect affects the minds of those who are male homosexuals. They see themselves as normal, when they obviously are not. How does one deal with people whose minds exist in a different reality? Our age is one in which the enemies of civilized values use homosexuals as one of their weapons. The homosexuals I have known are incapable of seeing their sexual behavior as a disease. They gladly adopt the PC creed that attacks the rest of us. Gore Vidals are rare and even he cannot be trusted.
Having lived in the center of the male homosexual community in a major American city,I have noticed that there are no diabetes pride parades.

Tim Johnston said...

Hi Sarah,
For what it's worth, I support your views on this 100% (and I do have a degree in Theology!).

I believe that you will not lose a single reader for your honesty.

And. congratulations on the new addition to your family!

Sarah Maid of Albion said...

Thanks Tim

I really appreciate that.


alanorei said...

Thank you for your article, Sarah

I would only make some comments w.r.t. the scriptures.

Part 1

I've read Leviticus numerous times but I'd never describe it as ranting. For example, today we all benefit from the realisation that Gentiles didn't understand for centuries that cleansing should be with running water, Leviticus 14:49-52. Jewish communities in the 14th century avoided the Black Death by means of the Levitical rules on hygiene.

Those are quite sobering thoughts.

Concerning 1 Corinthians 6:9 and 1 Timothy 1:10, the King's men who translated the New Testament Epistles for the KJB had Koine Greek "at their fingers' ends" as one writer remarked. They included Dr John Spencer, who became Professor of Greek at Corpus Christ College, Oxford at the age of 19. I guess today we'd call him a prodigy.

What I'm getting at is that you can ignore any modern criticisms of the work of the learned men of 1604-1611. They didn't make translation mistakes.

They also translated the Letter of Jude, where verse 7 also accords with Romans 1, even if not in so much detail. However, that's 4 separate references from 2 different writers on the subject that all match and that is sufficient to establish the New Testament position, according to 2 Corinthians 13:1.

Romans 2:1 and Matthew 7:1 are addressing the issue of hypocrisy. Neither verse precludes condemnation of sin, see Ephesians 5:11, in my earlier comment. Nor do they preclude judgement by an individual on sinful beghaviour, as Matthew 7:2-5 show and as the Lord urged in John 7:24, where He urges right judgement:

"Judge not according to the appearance, but judge righteous judgment."

alanorei said...

Part 2 (sorry for the length)

You are correct in pointing out, in effect that the Christian has to "rightly divide the word of truth" as Paul states in 2 Timothy 2:15 but while the Lord wasn't as explicit on the subject as Paul, He made some key statements.

Luke 17:28-30 "Likewise also as it was in the days of Lot; they did eat, they drank, they bought, they sold, they planted, they builded; But the same day that Lot went out of Sodom it rained fire and brimstone from heaven, and destroyed them all. Even thus shall it be in the day when the Son of man is revealed."

Note that the Lord refers to day-to-day life in Sodom in familiar terms but He doesn't question in any way the judgemnent of God that fell on them for their sinfulness, as described in Genesis 18, 19*.

*Only the KJB reveals the link between sodomy and paedophilia, in Genesis 18:20, 19:4-5. All modern texts cover up for the child molesters. Note that the original Sodomites, being from Ham, Genesis 10, would have been black or dark-skinned. You probably won't hear that preached anywhere today, likewise Ham's sin of sodomy with his father Noah who was drunk at the time, Genesis 9:22-24.

But the Lord is referring to the events of Genesis 18, 19 to show that conditions will be similar when He returns at the 2nd Advent.

The other interesting statement that the Lord makes is in Matthew 11:23-24. Here He shows that had He ministered in Sodom as He had in the towns of His day, which He could have done as a theophany, i.e. an appearance of the Lord in the Old Testament, after conversing with Abraham, Genesis 18, the Lord could have brought about a spiritual and social revival greater even than Jonah achieved in Nineveh, Jonah 3.

But He didn't. The sinfulness of the population afforded no remedy, only judgement.

I submit that all of the above is sobering. It has been said that the way to study the scripture is with a believing heart and a humble mind. I believe that is a true exhortation.

Re: the woman caught in adultery, John 7:53-8:11, the Lord didn't condone the woman's sin, though He delivered her from it, see verse 11. The key to the passage is the absence of the male. The Pharisees were trying to fit the Lord up and the male culprit was no doubt one of their own. Once again, the issue was hypocrisy, over and above 'sexuality.'

In sum, the Lord and the Apostles were consistent throughout the NT on this subject (see also 1 Thessalonians 4:3-8, Hebrews 13:4*) and their stance is, in reality, expressed in "great plainness of speech" 2 Corinthians 3:12.

*Ashley Cole, take note, also of 1 Thessalonians 4:6.

Sarah Maid of Albion said...

Dear Alanorei

AS you know, I have great respect for you, and that goes without saying, and I certainly bow to your greater knowledge of the Bible.

However, I will say this, my own perception of Leviticus is that it is somewhat extreme and suited to another time.

At the time of Moses fairness was seen as an eye for an eye, whereas Christ said to turn the other cheek.

It is not my intention to criticise 17th Century biblical translations. However, translation will inevitably be ruled by interpretation when there is no equivalence in words, is, for instance a "soft" man a coward, is he gentle or is he effeminate?

The answer may well depend on the prejudice of the time

That is what I mean when I say there are questions over interpretation.

However, "let he who is without sin amongst you cast the first stone" is somewhat unequivocal.

Beyond this, there is a matter of presentation, the obsession which so many on the right have with what others do in bed is extraordinarily damaging to us.

For instance, I have issues with David Duke, however, he has produced an excellent video, in which he completely skewers an American TV anchor Rachel Maddow for her bigotry, her hypocrisy and, indeed her racism.

However, nobody who could have been converted was listening as, at the very beginning he called Maddow a "pervert" because she is a lesbian. With that one word he lost the support of everyone who was not already in agreement with him.

As a result his video was a waste of time and achieved nothing because he had alienated everyone who would not have agreed with him any way, and it was that one word "pervert" which did it.

It was so stupid

Homophobia is no longer a luxury we can afford, the other issues are far too important

alanorei said...

Interesting points, Sarah, thank you.

You are right about Leviticus. It was designed historically for a different and indeed, a desperate time, as the events of the next book, Numbers, show. That doesn't preclude present-day applications, e.g. w.r.t. to principles of hygiene.

I agree the Sermon on the Mount is different from Exodus 21 and the giving of the Law but it did not override it:

"Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil" Matthew 5:17.

It also demanded higher standards of personal conduct:

"And if thy right eye offend thee, pluck it out, and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell" Matthew 5:29.

Noting verse 28, that is a tough condition for today but it does show God's consistent attitude to and abhorrence of sin.

That's one of God's absolutes, regardless of any other person, opinion, prejudice, time or place, though He does exercise mercy. See below.

Re: translation, it depends on context.

But if you check the words "soft" or "softly" in a concordance, you'll find they occur 16 times and the KJB uses them pretty much as we'd use them today:

"Then Jael Heber's wife took a nail of the tent, and took an hammer in her hand, and went softly unto him*, and smote the nail into his temples, and fastened it into the ground: for he was fast asleep and weary. So he died" Judges 4:21.

*The enemy army commander, not Jael's husband.

The Translators to the Readers is a good treatise on how the King's men did their work. It largely speaks for itself.

Re: John 8:7, only one Man could have put that statement into effect. He didn't, verse 11. As James 2:13 says "mercy rejoiceth against judgement."

Everyone is in need of that mercy.

The main reason most folk won't avail themselves of it is also down to a 'phobia' - Bibliophobia.

That is what is most damaging today, individually, socially, nationally.

And that is the big issue, I suggest.

tyhz1995 said...

Good evening Madam you have not lost me and I salute your grit.Carry on.-Tyler

notareargunner said...

Good article. The only problem is that you will be read by those who do not understand the use of the off switch.
Many decade ago I used to entertain the local RC clergy, deep in the bush on those long African nights. He became aware that I had a history, catholic father and methodist mother, but I never let on about the years I worked in Belfast and the hypocracy that was eventually to turn me agnostic. I have met thoroughly decent Catholic, Jews, Muslims and Prodestant (spelt correctly) and a lot of really evil bastards of all faiths. What few of them can accept is that there are really good people and there are evil people, as there are lesbions, homosexuals paedophiles and bent politicians.
You have your views and good for you. I will not challenge your theology except to say that on a couple of occasions I have been very close to death and have never experienced anything like the clapping of thunder, the hand of..., the great deliverance. There has been hell all around and a job to be done, but training and experience and dogged attitude kept the show running as others dived on their knees and started chanting. If it got them through, so what, but when it started to jeopardise my safety they got a hefty boot near the memory gland.

I wish you and your family a good life, a happy life. And to your detractors, well, sad bastards...

At least us old agnostics don't need bogoted props for our prejudices.

Anonymous said...

The only way to understand this phenomenon is at a biological level.

They cannot help their orientation, although they can control their behavior, and in public we should encourage modesty, tolerate it, but not promote it actively.

What makes zero sense to me is the leftwing agenda of promoting it at the same time as importing millions of immigrants who are sworn to be deeply inimical to homosexuality.

Would someone from the globalist poliburo, who now control us so minutely, please explain why this apparent contradiction is really such a wonderful idea?

IMHO, and on another aspect of this, the only reason that such a maladaptive behavior survives through evolutionary time is that it must have had some advantage. The only advantage that makes sense is that their sisters (inheriting the same gene) were more attractive and/or hypersexual and therefore probably had more kids, to overcompensate for the loss of their brother to the gene pool. The homosexual brother would also have been nurturing, and this would have helped his extended family raise the kids to survive, some of whom would be hyperbreeding females and some (50% of the boys) would be heterosexual males.

In this scenario, homosexuality is inherited from the mother (makes sense, really), either as a recessive gene, probably X-linked, or a dominant autosomal gene.

But now, with contraception, etc, we don't get the benefit out of it, so from a population/demographic viewpoint, it is a losing proposition.

Whatever the explanation, there is no doubt it is a profoundly hardwired biological phenomenon.


AgainsTTheWall said...

I do know that men are different, but even those who indulge in same sex unions whilst for instance in prison for the need of human companionship... Whoa Sarah!

I despise Christianity probably more than any other religion. It aggravates me greatly that modern British nationalism bangs on relentlessly about our Christian heritage. To me that heritage is at the root of our problems. My code of honour (such as it is) in no way derives from the teachings of Jesus and his followers.

Perhaps therefore I have no right to comment on others Christian beliefs. However I will.

Christianity in its origins was a complete rejection of Jewish religious thought and practice of the time. As an alternative to the covenant with a wrathful, vengeful, even genocidal Jewish God Christianity offered a new covenant for all men with a God of Mercy and Love. In several other ways Jesus rejected traditional Judaism and fostered a revolution within that religion which spread worldwide. For a time Judaism was threatened and its no wonder that Jesus was regarded with such venom by Jewish religion authorities then and later.

Its therefore a puzzle to me why Christianity has adopted the Old Testament. Two thousand years ago the OT was the bedrock of Judaism which Jesus tried to overturn.

Thus to return to the subject of the post it just seems wrong-headed for a Christian to point to Leviticus for justification of their stance on homosexuality.

Homosexuality exists and is abnormal or at least a poor evolutionary strategy. A moral issue - not so sure? A normal person would be repelled by it - so its perfectly reasonable that it should be kept out of the public domain. After all we all must modify our public behaviour from time to time in the interests of group tranquillity. But to morally condemn someone for being and practising homosexuality privately is too dogmatic for my taste.

alanorei said...

Re: "Its therefore a puzzle to me why Christianity has adopted the Old Testament."

It is not a puzzle.

"For whatsoever things were written aforetime were written for our learning, that we through patience and comfort of the scriptures might have hope" Romans 15:4.

"Now all these things happened unto them for ensamples: and they are written for our admonition, upon whom the ends of the world are come" 1 Corinthians 10:11.

Re: "Two thousand years ago the OT was the bedrock of Judaism which Jesus tried to overturn."

Not true. "The bedrock of Judaism" was the Jews' tradition, not the Old Testament, 2 Corinthians 3:14.

The Lord Jesus Christ opposed the Jews' dereliction of the Old Testament via their tradition.

"And he said unto them, Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition...Making the word of God of none effect through your tradition, which ye have delivered: and many such like things do ye" Mark 7:9, 13.

"The word of God" is consistent throughout scripture w.r.t. unrepentant sodomites and the end punishment is the same. See Leviticus 18:22, Jude 7, Revelation 21:8. Note that this is more history and prophecy than religious belief.

For a contemporary Biblical analysis see here.

When shown this tract at a local university about 16 years ago, the LGB Society tried to get the member of staff who distributed it sacked. They failed but their reaction to the tract was clearly symptomatic of a pricked conscience.

Anonymous said...

Personally i see Jesus as a rejection of and replacement for the Old Testament. The New Testament replaced the Old for people in the middle-east and later replaced the Norse myths for people in the north of Europe.

For me personally the Bible is the New Testament and the Norse myths are my Old Testament. Leviticus belongs elsewhere.

Others may disagree of course.

Anonymous said...

I have no problem in a 'live and let live' attitude to those homosexuals and lesbians who find their sexual mind trapped in the wrong body at birth. Such a condition of course is mother nature gone wrong, like being born with any other kind of physical or mental abnormality. They deserve our sympathy but they can never be considered normal. No one would ever consider the tragic Thalidomide children (born without arms, legs, etc, all because of a morning sickness drug taken during the foetus developing first 3 months of pregnancy)of the 60's as normal, even though most were unaffected in the sexual sense and went on to produce normal children. Why should we think of a man who is actually a girl and vice versa any different to other physically or mentally damaged children?

What we now have is a truly evil promotion of homosexuality where the vulnerable young mind is affected from a very early age into accepting 'being gay' as perfectly normal by the state education system and media brainwashing. This of course has a later knock-on effect on the indigenous birth rate for those whose minds are permanently affected and lured into following an abnormal and often decadent lifestyle journey that they would never have embarked upon had it not been for the establishment's and media's mind games.

We now live in a society where almost anything goes, apart that is from being normal. I am certain that the next stage of this destruction of Western Civilization is the gradual reducing of the legal age of sexual consent down to at least 13 years of age so that it is still in the 'teens' as it were. The destructive power and nature of sexual activity at such an early age and the inevitable pregnancies, should not be underestimated. After 13 is legal and accepted as the norm, 10 years of age will be the next lowering of the bar; still in double figures so that's alright many will foolishly say and agree to. Our children still in Primary School fornicating like adults and probably fornicating with adults who will prey on them like rampant rabbits. All perfectly legal and accepted by many as perfectly normal just as homosexuality is today.

The best trick Satan ever pulled was convincing the world that he did not exist.
The Usual Suspects

alanorei said...

Anon 11:22

Re: your comments on social engineering etc., most informative, thank you.

Re: the Great Enemy, you are entirely correct, I believe.

Anonymous said...

"What makes zero sense to me is the leftwing agenda of promoting it at the same time as importing millions of immigrants who are sworn to be deeply inimical to homosexuality.

Would someone from the globalist poliburo, who now control us so minutely, please explain why this apparent contradiction is really such a wonderful idea?"

That is easy to explain.The point of PC/MC is the destruction of the white race.

Since the majority of non-White immigrants are males,brainwashing White males into Homosexuality is a win win situation.

Just combine it.The more White males become Homosexual,the more White women will go for non-White males.

And this is where I disagree with Sarah.The gay-life is a construct of the leftist society.Everybody mentions how gay the ancient Greeks were,but they forget that all these men had wives and children.If it is possible that someone is really exclusively gay then how could these men even have sex with their wives?

I also disagree with the Iran thing.I don't believe that they must be gay because they lived the gay life despite living in Iran.
Nobody says whether the young men who were hung, were gay (as in Siegfried and Roy-gay) or whether they have just have been caught doing Homosexual acts.These acts between men (even between donkeys and men, no joke i heard it from Turks first hand) are nothing uncommon in Islamic countries where easy women are not as available as in Europe.

Bottom line:
Homosexuality as a life style is nothing but another weapon against White demographics.

Anonymous said...

"After 13 is legal and accepted as the norm, 10 years of age will be the next lowering of the bar;"

I think eventually they'll want it to be 9 because of Mohamed.

Tim Johnston said...

"The more White males become Homosexual,the more White women will go for non-White males."

I hadn't made this connection before. In my experience, women like them because they're more aggressive (and the women have abuse issues).

alanorei said...

Re: "I think eventually they'll want it to be 9 because of Mohamed."

Amen to that.

Anonymous said...

Without wanting to be insulting or anything, it would seem to me that the God you don't wan't to follow is the God of the Bible.

The Great Commission of baptizing nations (as distinct from individuals) is about applying the sundry Mosaic judicial laws to modern kingdomes (nation states), i.e. the third use of the law. As an old school Presbyterian, I congratulate Iran for executing 'same sex' sodomites as the Anglican governments always did in England & Ireland until the 19th century, and lament the apostasy from the true Christian religion via 'Acts of Leniency' afterwards. I only wish they would apply that act to straight couples also, as Britain did in purer times.

I also notice you make no scriptural link between the Bible's exclusion of the 'mamzer' from the nation, or the prohibition of miscegination in the law 'In thine owne people shalt thy seed be numbered' in building the case against immigration/for repatriation of non-white immigrants. Please check out for more info on the spiritual nature of this struggle.

If you seek to avoid the use of scriptural judicial judgements against capital offenders such as adulterers, sodomites, sorcerers, rapists, murderers, etc, you will find no-one in church history to support you before the 19th century 'downgrade' apostasy. I must urge you in all gentelnesse and love to reconsider the antinomian principles you were raised to in school & home (as I once was), and return to the Orthodox Protestant faith of our fathers and our kinsmen redeemer. White nationalism is our cause only because it is God's cause ie 'I came only to the lost son's of Israel'. Christ on the application of the law to the societies of the ten lost tribes (Yisrael Britannicus).

PS: Slavery is indeed biblical, 'servents, obay ye youre maisters in the fleshe' & c. I personally oppose it due to the danger of miscegination it presents, and like the old Scot reformers in Pensylvania, favour repatriation to Liberia.

PPS: Please understand that I speak only in love and have tried to broach this topic in a civil manner.

All the best to you and your family.

Seane-Anna said...

Wow! This post garnered a lot of attention!

The problem, imho, is that, like an increasing number of people on the Right, you, Sarah, have bought into the Left's pro-gay ideology while still claiming allegiance to the traditional, Bible-based values historically championed by the Right. Yet, acceptance of homosexuality as normal is NOT part of the West's traditional, Judeo-Christian sexual ethic.

Sarah, you can't have it both ways.

The notion that we on the Right have to placate the sexual liberationists on the Left in order to advance our agenda is ludicrous. The Right is supposed to stand for something. If what we believe is distorted by propagandists on the Left, the answer is not to water down or change our beliefs, but to fight back with the truth.

And the truth is that most of us on the Right do actually believe in tolerance for homosexuals, but that's different from the normalizing of homosexuality demanded by the Left. We reject the idea that gays are an oppressed people but see them instead as an aberrant sex group that should be left alone so long as they keep their sexuality to themselves.

We don't believe that gays should be harrassed, beaten up, or executed. But we also don't believe that homosexuality should be given an official stamp of approval by society. What's wrong with that? Why is that position so indefensible?

When people on the Right start parroting the views of the Left something's very wrong. I believe in conservatism and traditional values, which the Right is increasingly abandoning in favor of liberalism lite. I feel that you, Sarah, epitomize that disturbing trend. And I find that very sad.

Tim Johnston said...


How exactly does the above article "epitomize that disturbing trend"? I can only conclude that we haven't been reading the same thing.

Who is placating the 'sexual liberationists'? Leaving gays alone is exactly the correct response as you say. Obviously, nobody on the Right is trumpeting their cause because generally, in Britain at least, we believe that the government shouldn't be interfering in people's lifestyle choices.
What you're calling 'liberalism' is really just acceptance of individual freedom which is a cornerstone of Western society. The Bible-based values may hold some importance in Texas, but not in a secular society like Britain. However much one believes in the Bible, it cannot form the basis for a political platform, and even Christians like me accept that and believe in separation of Church and State - exactly like Americans do.

Of course it should be given an official stamp of approval by society (or the government, which is NOT the same thing). If heterosexual marriage and childbearing are natural - and they are - then free people will choose them. And they do, time and time again. The government doesn't need to "promote" ANY form of sexuality, people do that themselves.

But to see left-wing ideology in the above article is odd. I see nothing of the sort. But I have a question. Do you think that adopting a different view on gayness would cause more people to become gay?