Rainbows and Demons

detail from The Garden of Earthly Delights by Hieronymus Bosch, 15th century Dutch painter.

detail from The Garden of Earthly Delights by Hieronymus Bosch, 15th century Dutch painter.

Ever pick up a rock and find its underside crawling with creepy things? I’m afraid I have. It would be nice to just put the rock back where I found it, but I can’t. It’s too much in the news these days; it was the Supreme Court’s decision about gay marriage that prompted me to turn it over – that decision and a statement one of my colleagues made decades ago.

Having been concerned about the contents of a paper he’d written, I was discussing a student with his counselor; the essay hinted at suicidal temptations and contained some disturbing occult references. No high school student should ever be in the dark and lonely place he was in when he wrote that paper; I was frightened for him. I have no recollection of how the situation resolved itself, but I can still hear his counselor’s offhand remark that in her experience occult interests seemed to go hand-in-hand with homosexual activity (The student was gay.). It was an odd remark – she wasn’t a Bible-thumper like me, and she meant no condemnation of either activity. She just noted their connection. Her statement has been haunting me ever since.

The whole homosexual fuss in the last decade or so has had me on edge. I’ve had both gay friends and gay students of whom I’ve been very fond, but about the time I start to soften my biblical point of view on the subject, pictures of gay pride parades pop into my head and the revulsion I feel is visceral. How do we resolve this? Can we condemn people because they’re breaking a 4,000-year-old prohibition – one they claim no longer applies?  After all, no one is perfect. So, I’ve been doing some historical research – how has this situation worked out in the past?

We all know about Sodom and Gomorrah – I include it because we need to be wondering about the outcome there. God blew those two cities to smithereens because of the “abominations” (Hebrew – toebah) being done there. God sends two angels (We should note that in the Bible angels -- both elect and fallen -- seem to be always male.) to warn Abraham’s nephew Lot to get out of Sodom. The men of the town try to rape these angels. Once Lot and his family escape, the town goes up in smoke. Note that both towns were slated for destruction before the rape attempt happens. If homosexuality is normal, harmless, not a problem, why did those towns have to be vaporized? Homosexual behavior is unhealthy, and doesn’t assist in reproduction, but it hardly seems a vaporizable offence. Yet, this divine attitude toward sexual deviance is still there a thousand years later when Moses passes His Law on to the Israelites:

“Do not give any of your children to be sacrificed to Molek, for you must not profane the name of your God. I am the Lord.
“Do not have sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman; that is detestable.
“Do not have sexual relations with an animal and defile yourself with it. A woman must not present herself to an animal to have sexual relations with it; that is a perversion.
“Do not defile yourselves in any of these ways, because this is how the nations that I am going to drive out before you became defiled. 25 Even the land was defiled; so I punished it for its sin, and the land vomited out its inhabitants. Leviticus 18

The entire chapter covers sinful sexual behavior – every possible permutation of sexual immorality, including child sacrifice. (The worshippers of Molek included in their worship rituals sex “enhanced” by the screams of children who were thrown into the fire built in the belly of the idol.) That reference immediately precedes the prohibition of homosexual and bestial behavior. Is there a connection?

The key word in all of this is idol. Throughout the Bible, idol worship (i.e. demonism) is connected with sexual perversions.  Look at the first chapter of Paul’s letter to the Romans:
“So God abandoned them to do whatever shameful things their hearts desired. As a result, they did vile and degrading things with each other's bodies. They traded the truth about God for a lie. So they worshiped and served the things God created instead of the Creator himself, who is worthy of eternal praise! Amen, “vs. 21-24.

What did God create? The entire universe, including angels, both the good ones and the ones that eventually turned on Him – angels we now call demons, angels who have historically been worshiped as idols, angels who cohabited with human women in Genesis 6. It was that sexual deviance that brought about the Flood and the rainbow that has now been co-opted by more sexual deviance.

Let’s move ahead in history to the Knights Templar, the quasi-religious brotherhood that began as a military answer to the attacks of the Seljuk Turks against Christian pilgrims traveling to Jerusalem in the late 11th century. Much has been written about this mysterious organization, so much that the truth is a muddle, but it appears that their long years in the Middle East (over 2 centuries) wrought some remarkable changes; they not only became fabulously wealthy, but they adopted some most un-Christian habits – a fondness for the god Baphomet and the ritual homosexual practices associated with this half-goat/half-human, half-male/half-female idol. These “sex magic” practices are said to have been petitions to demons for power and wealth. The transgender movement is making a little more sense. Androgyny seems always to be present in demonic environs and today’s postmodern deconstructionist mindset is the perfect backdrop for the blurring of all distinctions, male/female, good/bad, evil/divine.

Now jump almost a thousand years to the 20th century and pre-Nazi Germany. The Nazi party began in a gay bar in Munich. In fact, according to The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich, Ernst Roehm, Hitler’s close associate at the beginning, and the leader of the Storm Troops, was a homosexual, as were “so many of the early Nazis.” Hitler’s Brown Shirts, the Storm Troops were almost always homosexual – “manly” homosexuals, not effeminate men; the androgynous were often executed.

It isn’t hard to connect the Nazis to horrendous homosexual and pederastic acts, but where’s the connection to the occult? Both Heinrich Himmler and Hitler himself were so involved that they eventually erased Christian holidays and replaced them with holidays connected to ancient German idolatry.

Now go find a picture of the last gay pride parade. It is my contention that we are not homophobic in our revulsion; we are demono-phobic; we are afraid, and rightfully so, of the demonic influence apparent in those demonstrations. Could the vile orgies of Molek and Baal have looked much different? So far no children have been burned alive, but soon many will be sacrificed to the pedophiles working their way into public acceptance. Tell me that such a thought isn’t demonic.

According to CatholicCulture.com exorcists are seeing quite a rise in demonism. Dr. Valter Cascioli, a spokesman for the International Association of Exorcists, said, “…the number of disturbances of extraordinary demonic activity is on the rise.” The situation, he said, is “becoming a pastoral emergency.”  Just recently the clergy in Mexico held a national exorcism to fight the growing instances of demonic behaviors. It is interesting here to note that the Greek word for drug abuse is the same as the word for witchcraft—pharmekaia. These things are all tangled together – sorcery/demonism/drugs/sexual deviance.

This is why we’re horrified. This is why the Supreme Court decision and the White House sanctioning of that decision scares so many of us. Demonism and sexual perversion are two sides of the same coin, and the name of that coin is “Hate God.” I can still hear the attendees at the last Democratic presidential convention booing the creator – not once, but three times. Is America quickly becoming a nation that God will “vomit out?” We have good reason to be afraid for “[w]e struggle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places…” Ephesians 6:12.












An Open Letter to Liberals....

Let’s be real here – you and I are not going to compromise, let alone agree, but it’s important that we at least understand each other. I personally know and adore many people on your side of things, but we peer out of our heads at two entirely different worlds: one where pigs fly and one where they don’t, one where truth is unnecessary and one where it’s all that matters, one where scientists are gods and one where only God is God.

From the outside looking in it’s hard to tell if I comprehend your perspective accurately, so do correct me if I’m wrong, but I should warn you that the name-calling, ad hominem-meets-straw-man shtick doesn’t affect any of us anymore. We’re over it, so just put that on a shelf for now. We’re also not likely to wilt from guilt trips either. Been there; decided not to do that.

You see, we conservatives are a practical lot. We want things to work. We have no misapprehension that man by himself can mend himself. We have no illusions about human nature; we know that mankind can’t be left home alone. We realize that we need some control, but that the government we need is still made up of the same imperfect people as the ones who need governing. We recognize that frightening conundrum, so we look to government for very little.

I don’t think you do see this problem. You seem – and correct me if I am in error – to trust people in power. We don’t. People screw up. People in power screw up stupendously. People in huge power kill -- millions, tens of millions. History is our proof. We are afraid of our current president not because he’s half black, but because he’s all tyrant. He uses all the same tactics as previous dictators. Any president who feels he has to occasionally reassure the American public that he’s not a king, has, in effect, admitted by that declaration that he sees himself as such – why else would it occur to him to say that? Methinks he doth protest too much.

However, it is apparent that the left is quite comfortable with a tyrant. You all seem quite willing to toss freedom overboard for free stuff, for revenge against those who are more successful than you are, for the illusion of moral superiority and inverted racism.

I know you think we’re all racists – you’ve been told that continuously for decades, and being selectively ignorant of history, you don’t factor in the primary part Republicans played in emancipation, the part they played in the Civil Rights movement, the fact that the KKK is, and always has been, primarily a Democrat organization. You don’t face the damage done to black culture by Lyndon Johnson’s War on Poverty, which has been one of the primary factors in the destruction of the black, inner city family. You don’t admit that liberal Planned Parenthood is highly responsible for the black genocide that Roe vs. Wade has wrought.

Those of us perched precariously on the right edge of history want to treat black people like people. We believe they are capable of caring for themselves and their own wellbeing. The right wing sees the inner city, housing-project culture not as a failure of blacks, or as a failure of the rich to care about the plight of those stuck in the ghetto, but as a result of the leftist policies that reward the negative behavior that makes a hellhole out of the inner city. Look at the history of cities like Detroit, Baltimore, Chicago – cities controlled by leftists for half a century. The poverty of those places is not a black thing, nor a rich Republican thing; it’s a Democrat socialist debacle.

You see, we conservatives are in this for the long haul; we think about long-term consequences of policies, not just the short-term effects. From where we stand we can see liberals whining about immediate solutions ($15/hr minimum wage) and burdened with a furious guilt about the past. We don’t often see you looking honestly and logically into the future. Oh, it’s true – the Wizard – whoever it might be; it’s hard to tell because he sits behind that giant green screen in the castle at Oz – the Wizard knows what the longish-term outcome will be – eventually, everyone but him will be equally poor because he’ll have control of all production. That is the ultimate outcome of socialistic policies. And it is also the ultimate outcome that the minions are clueless (The minimum wage may well go to $15, and the folks depending on that boon will shortly discover that they are without jobs altogether as robotic minions move in.)

If you are still reading, follow me a little further – I have some suggestions:

    --- We need to stop making policy based on the exception. Policy is by definition a broad, sweeping, applies-to-most-people idea. Policy – whether in private business or in public decision-making, has to lump things together for efficiency’s sake, for fairness’ sake, and for organization’s sake. If you are mayor of a town of 1,000 people, and of those 1,000 souls, 3 can’t stand the color pink, do you create a zoning ordinance allowing houses to be painted any color but pink? Of course not. Sooner or later someone will paint his house purple and another few will throw a fit because they don’t like that color, or because it’s too close to pink, or because it’s against their religion. Then someone will paint his place puce, or mauve, or fuchsia and you’ll have to pay a color consultant to come in and determine whether or not those colors are pink. You’ll also have to hire a lawyer because there’s at least a half dozen lawsuits in that tangle.

The same kind of nonsense swirls around the gay marriage issue. Less than 2% of the population is homosexual, yet we’re going to upend a 6,000-year=old precedence that pleases 98% of the population, realign public school curricula, make mincemeat out of the demonstrable fact that men are not interchangeable with women, and undo many millennia of sexual morality for the sake of a tiny minority. My practicality meter is screaming; the inefficiencies, the unfairness, the disorganization in this situation boggles my mind.

The same has been true with Affirmative Action. We’ve awarded one group of people preferment in college application and it has resulted in inefficiencies – flooding colleges with students unprepared to do college-level work, in unfairness – cutting out white, able students in order to make room for the incapable, and disorganization as these substandard students fill positions of responsibility in our society.

    ---- We need to stop calling things what they are not. Rachel Dolezal is not black, no matter what she says. Bruce Jenner is not Caitlyn no matter what he imagines. We all come into this world with wishes that are not and cannot be fulfilled. I would love to be able to sing, but being born with substandard, limited vocal chords and a brain that cannot store melodies, that’s not going to happen. I can say that I identify as an opera singer and nothing will change.  I would like to be 30 pounds lighter than I am, but buying clothes in a size 4 will not fulfill that desire. Reality bites. Conservatives believe in reality. When I stub my toe I have to acknowledge the not only the stoic existence of the brick hearth, but also my own clumsiness; it looks to me like progressives would be more likely to sue the fireplace.

   ---- And along those lines, we need to stop pretending that everything is morally neutral. There’s a photo making the rounds on FaceBook of a 12-year-old boy, half naked and all dolled up in rainbow hair color and a silk-flower lei. The picture was taken at a gay pride parade where he was seen dancing in a sexually provocative manner. Another Internet story tells of a young boy whose lesbian “mothers” were starting sex change procedures so he could become “she.” On what planet are those scenarios not morally abhorrent? Not child abuse? Not perverse and disgusting? Oh. Right. Ours  - now.

I feel really sorry for all you progressives – the mental confusion you have to keep straight on a daily basis must be truly burdensome and is utterly unnecessary. I understand that my saying so won’t result in your tossing your counterproductive opinions, but this all had to be said anyway. You will have to hate me and call me names because you have no other argument. But remember, hate is debilitating and hard on your health – not mine. If you don’t mind, I’ll pray for you.


A Phobiaist’s Complaint

 I am so confused. Perhaps the progressives are correct and we right-wingers are inadequately subtle and nuanced in our thinking. I know that liberals speak out against labeling and stereotyping, but that confuses me too because they have built up so many tiny little contradictory pigeon-holes to stuff people into and for the life of me I can’t figure out who goes where.  

If I am afraid that Islamists might kill me, and I want to stop them, I’m Islamiphobic, but a “phobia” is an unreasonable fear – like arachibutyrophobia– an irrational, intense fear of peanut butter sticking to the roof of your mouth. PB is a little gluey, but that’s what the J is for, so there’s no reason for fear. No one has ever died from peanut butter stickiness. But millions have died horrifying deaths at the hands of Islamists, so it seems reasonable to have some serious concerns about their intentions. Even if only 1% are dangerous, that still makes a million of them running around with bombs and machetes. Pardon my Islamophobia, but yikes.
If, however, I’m afraid of offending said Muslims, and kowtow to their every ridiculous demand, I’m not Islamophobic, I am compassionate and multicultural and diverse. Muddle, muddle. This same principle appears when dealing with issues surrounding gay rights.

If I am against gay marriage and wish that homosexuals would keep their clothes on in public, then I’m homophobic, somehow afraid of these sequined and painted people who mostly just want to force me to say that what they do is just fine with God, who, according to them, doesn’t exist (Large question mark appears over my head).

For quite a long time I laughed at the term homophobic because it was so over-reactive, but given recent developments and the gay rights folk being willing to ruin, bankrupt, and dispossess Christians who are unwilling to countermand God’s instructions on marriage, perhaps it’s reasonable to be afraid of same-sex couples. But then if the fear is rational it isn’t a phobia.

Speaking of gay issues, what do we call the liberal gay male who is pro-Palestinian? Do these guys not know that Muslims in their own countries throw gay men off roofs?  And what do we call liberal women who seem comfortable with the prospect of Sharia? There’s no term for them? Allow me: Christophobic nincompoops.

Speaking of nincompoopness, let’s look at the issue of sexism, which I’ve always found perplexing. After all everyone has a sex – in fact, it appears now that we all have several.

So are you sexist if you’re homosexual and want nothing to do with the opposite sex? Doesn’t seem like it. Are you sexist if you don’t like the sex you are and want to change it? Nope – don’t think so. If you change from a man to a woman, do you then become pro-men, or were you always? If so, then are you now straight? I don’t know. Perhaps a person is sexist only if he, or she (:-)), still believes in the original man/woman sexual arrangement, though that seems the only reasonable attitude given the fact that a mere 2% of the population is oriented otherwise. But “reasonable” is not part of this picture.

Now, if one is both pro-Islamic and anti-sexist (anti-sexist= anti-male, which is, in some mysterious way, not sexist) then how can you accept the anti-female dictates of Sharia Law? Are you afraid you would be labeled mutilaphobic if you took a stand against such practices? I should also point out that Muslim men are given permission by the Koran to marry four wives, simultaneously, and to beat them whenever they wish. But we would be mistaken if we think this behavior is sexist. To think so would be provincial and naïve, completely lacking in the suavity of multiculturalism. And any woman, like Ayaan Hirsi Ali or Brigitte Gabriel, who speaks out against Islamic barbarism toward women is a hateful bigot – we must somehow digest that, confounding as it may be.  

So, are you sexist if you dislike or distrust a given woman? It depends on the woman. If she has a liberal vagina, she is good, right? If she doesn’t, then she’s bad. No. Well, sort of; if she hasn’t a vagina then she is a he, and that would be bad.  But what about a transgendered person – is a manufactured vagina enough? And why isn’t a uterus necessary? Oh, that’s right, that’s the troublesome part of the female anatomy, so there will be no bragging about it. We only talk about the fun part.

Then there’s racism; what makes a person racist? Evidently, distrusting Barack Obama and Eric Holder. But, you have to understand that their being black is not the issue. After all, it’s ok to hate Thomas Sowell, Clarence Thomas, Ben Carson, Allen West, etc. The issue is conservative vs. progressive, not black versus white. They say that’s the point, but it isn’t. It has something to do with authenticity – whatever that means. Obama is not of slave blood, is not poor, never has been. But he is an authentic socialist, so I assume that is the issue in racism; one must have X amount of melanin in the skin and vote Democrat – such a person can have nothing critical said about them. I have no idea why.

That gets us to the issue of thugism. He who is prone to tearing up private property, setting fire to family businesses, shooting cops and expecting to be paid for his trouble may mistakenly be called a thug. This is deceptive because if said thug is also black then he can’t be a thug, because thug is the new incarnation of the word n----r, which can only be used by racists (unless the speaker is authentically black). And don’t forget that racists can only be white and can only vote Republican – in spite of the fact that slavery and racism are Democrat constructs. It was Republicans who pushed to rid our society of both. Do you see why I’m puzzled?

We also have to remember that it’s ok for a black person to be a copist, to be policephobic -- regardless of whether or not the cop in question is black. Nor is copism influenced by the fact that blacks arrested by cops (black or white) are actually committing crimes. If I point out that more blacks are arrested than whites because blacks commit more crimes, that makes me a racist. Facts have no bearing on the issue, which is always bewildering.

It’s also baffling that the aborting of black babies is not racist.  That blacks appear, if the statistics are accurate, to be more babyophobic than other races mystifies me. They are dooming their own race to perpetual minority status, but it’s still racist -- and sexist -- to be against that practice. Sexist also, evidently because we only honor the vagina, the playground, and not the reproductive part of feminine power. Perplexing in the extreme.

I am beginning to understand the left’s fascination with drugs. Anyone this realityphobic has got to be heavily medicated to make it from one day to the next. In fact, I may need medicating if I have to listen to much more of this drivel. I don’t hate blacks, gays, or Muslims, but I do hate it when people use the smoke and mirrors of iillogic and linguistic trickery to hide the fact that they have no idea what they are talking about. Call me a phobiaist, if you must call me something, and try talking sense. We’d all be happier.