Dr. Warren Farrell Destroys Feminism Tuesday, Jul 16 2013 

The USA Today Exposes the Continuing Curse of Women’s Rights Thursday, May 16 2013 

The insane policies of the United States government regarding the equality of men and women continue to plague the female gender. The American male, now a de-christianized savage sees one primary, and no-strings attached, purpose for women: sexual exploitation.   The atrocities happening in the military right now:





were predicted by Robert lewis Dabney,

“If human experience has established anything at all, it is the truth of that principle announced by the Hebrew prophet when he declared that the great aim of God in ordaining a permanent marriage tie between one man and one woman was ‘that He might seek a godly seed.’ God’s ordinance, the only effective human ordinance for checking and curbing the first tendencies to evil, is domestic , parental government. When the family shall no longer have a head, and the great foundation for the subordination of children in mother’s example is gone; when the mother shall have found another sphere than her home for her energies; when she shall have exchanged the sweet charities of domestic love and sympathy for the fierce passions of the hustlings; when families shall be disrupted at the caprice of either party, and the children scattered as foundlings from their hearthstone,- it requires no wisdom to see that a race of sons will be reared nearer akin to devils than to men. In the hands of such a bastard progeny, without discipline, without homes, without a God, the last remains of social order will speedily perish, and society will be overwhelmed in savage anarchy. ”

The Southern Magazine, January, 1871 Vol. 8, pg. 332

Why are the women complaining? They are getting exactly what they wanted! What’s with the fuss? Women, I have to tell you the truth: these women

are to blame. When are some of you abused military women going to get this and come out and start saying something? You were deceived by a group of women who were traitors to their race, traitors to their Fathers, traitors to the Christian Covenants of their Fathers and most tragically traitors to their own gender. Are you a disgruntled single mom who was told in her youth to follow her heart and pick the guy that best seemed to fit her youthful passions? Are you now starting to see why we White Christian Patriarchal men tried to control our young women? You don’t know what is best for you. It is obvious. White women are almost a bad of a disease in this country as white liberal men.  Or maybe you are in your 30s, you live off of child support because the young man you thought was so hot, turned out to be an immoral piece of human shit;  Didn’t see that one coming did you? Or maybe you are one of the hundreds of thousands of women raped in this country every year. Or maybe, being ONE OF THREE women in America sexually assaulted, you are now ready to speak out. Something has to happen. Someone needs to start pointing at who is to blame. They won’t listen to me. I’m a Racist, Theocratic, Homophobe.

Do Men Who Reject Women’s Rights Believe in Spousal Abuse? Monday, Dec 3 2012 

I was recently told that my rejection of Women’s Rights (here and here), is a denial of liberation that women received from the hands of White Patriarchal Tyrants who had the right to beat their wives! It truly is amazing what insanities  and lies form the minds of liberals. Anyway a little history for you to chew on:

“The Massachusetts Body of Liberties (1641)

80. Everie marryed woeman shall be free from bodilie correction or stripes by her husband, unlesse it be in his owne defence upon her assalt. If there be any just cause of correction complaint shall be made to Authoritie assembled in some Court, from which onely she shall receive it.”[1]


The Curse of Women’s Rights and Universal Suffrage Friday, Nov 23 2012 


            As most of my readers are aware, I am intensely interested, to the point of obsession, with the Doctrine of God (DG). It is then only fitting that I begin this treatise by connecting the DG with the social issues of equality and suffrage by showing how they all relate. As I have proved exhaustively in my Nicene Triadology works[1], the realities of supremacy, subordination, distinction, division of labor, specialization, and even private property exist within the divine persons themselves in eternity. Thus, these principles are by definition good, for they reflect the nature of God himself. To deny them is to incriminate the person of God (The Father).


As the statement of faith reads from the website of my proposed, The Protestant Christian Church of Louisville,

“There are three eternal minds and wills (a generic unity, not a numeric [with reference to Cardinal numbers] unity) that comprise the Christian Godhead. Speaking in the concrete, the Father is the One God [1-Here we have the Father’s supremacy and Monarchy affirmed.-DS]. Speaking in the abstract, the other two persons are God in the sense that all three persons have the same generic TYPE of nature. [2] The essence of the divine persons is their propositional ideas [3]. These distinct ideas, ad intra, are the foundation for ontological distinctions within God, ad intra – not a thinking temporal and by temporal sequence as men do, but rather eternally with only logical sequence [Thus the value of distinction is affirmed.-DS]. Within this knowledge is a distinction between the manner of God’s knowledge and object of God’s knowledge (not essence and energy). Thus men participate in the object of God’s knowledge not the manner as to become God in essence. [4] This provides an uncreated logos within the created order for there to be univocal knowledge of God and an ontological connection between divine and human in Christ. Having said that, nature directs will and action through rational deliberation; thus, Calvinism. [5-Thus the Luciferian doctrine so fundamental to the French Revolution’s Universal Equality, “Do as thou wilt”, is denied and is replaced with, “Do as divine nature directs”.-DS] Having said that, within each divine person is an ad intra ontological distinction between nature and will. The creation springs directly from divine will, not nature; thus, creation is not consubstantial with God. The Eternal Generation of the Son springs directly from the divine nature of the Father; thus, Christ is consubstantial with God and is a divine person. The personal property of the Father is causality [Thus private property is affirmed.-DS]. The Son is eternally generated ontologically from the Father alone. This is a singular generation, not an infinite emanation (thus, there is no hierarchy of being on which to base Pseudo Dionysian principles of ecclesiology or pagan views of Anchorism in ethics and redemption). The Spirit proceeds ontologically from the Father alone (precisely because causality is a property of the Father alone not a divine attribute). [6]

In summary, there is ONE God the Father and two other divine persons come out (a logical sequence not a chronological sequence) of the Father eternally. The other two persons are inferior to the Father at the level hypostasis but not at the level of nature [Thus supremacy and subordination.-DS]. At the level of nature, they are consubstantial (generically, not numerically). The Son eternally generates from the Father and the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father alone with reference to the ontological Trinity. With reference to the creation and the economy of salvation, the Holy Spirit is sent by and through the Son.


[1] JOHN 5:44, JOHN 17:3 , 1COR 8:6, EPH 4:6

[2] JOHN 1:1-4, 14, 18, ACTS 5:3-4

[3] PROV 23:7

[4] 2 PET 1:4; THE ANSWER, PG. 20

[5] LUKE 6:43-44

[6] JOHN 15:26”

The Neoplatonic doctrine of Absolute Divine Simplicity (ADS) denies all these principles. ADS conflates nature and person-attribute and property, in favor of a universal equality among the divine persons; thus denying private property, division of labor and specialization. ADS rejects the idea of the Father’s supremacy and monarchy and instead affirms that the Son is auto-theos and not dependent on and subordinate to the Father; thus a kind of liberation theology.

Thus it is my strong affirmation and conclusion that this issue is simply another application of my fundamental accusation that the doctrine which we know of as Absolute Divine Simplicity, the monad of Plotinus, which in itself is full of contradictions and inconsistencies which only those with a keen eye can detect, is none other than that great dragon, the serpent who deceived Eve, the Father of lies and author of confusion: Satan. He is that angel of light who was a murderer from the beginning and abode not in the truth. It is then no surprise that the peoples who have embraced these ideas the fullest, the Romanists and the Communists, have shed more blood than any in the history of the world. Yet we are not ignorant of his devices and let us then move forward in exposing him.

Rae Hodge of The Louisville Cardinal; Local Feminist Exposed Saturday, Nov 17 2012 

In her periodical, The Louisville Cardinal, local feminist Rae Hodge, wrote about a public  event that I conducted at the University of Louisville,

“FACT: If I catch you on my campus using a roped-off “Free Speech Zone” to yell pro-slavery and anti-gay sentiments to a group of black students within earshot of the Office for LGBT Services, I will – repeat WILL – publicly humiliate you in front of your intended audience by demolishing your arguments until you are speechless, befuddled and blushing deeply. My rhetoric will be swift, uncompromising and executed with extreme prejudice.

And, yes, that’s exactly what happened Tuesday when Drake Shelton, the white supremacist would-be leader of the as yet unformed Protestant Christian Church of Louisville, jumped on his racist soapbox at U of L to beat his separatist drum to the tune of Leviticus 25:44, with a sign propped at his feet reading: “This colony never kidnapped slaves from Africa.

While I would love to detail how this interaction unfolded, what’s more important here is recognizing how this incident reflects two major problems with the debate regarding hate speech on public college campuses.”

Reader, is it not immediately curious that she refrains from detailing how she publicly humiliated me  by demolishing my arguments until I was speechless? Maybe that is because she does not want you to know the details. Isn’t it curious that someone so blatantly arrogant as this woman who dares her opponents to, “build an argument that can withstand the christening edge of my bloody axe”, would refrain from a full display of just how skillfully she butchered me to pieces? I am not so hesitant to explain in detail what happened and this is why I believe she refrained from doing so:

1.  I never said a single word about the gay issue. Not a single statement. So right off the press, in her first statement Hodge reveals that she has no problems publicly lying about her opponent.

2. She didn’t refute my arguments she avoided them completely and demonized later statements I made. This is her second lie. I provided many historical citations, which I had copies of on my person, detailing that my ancestors in Virginia never kidnapped Africans, a popular sentiment among the anti-Christian establishment, opposed the trade on numerous occasions and were forced into participating by the English Crown. This she admitted she could not refute. I also  provided a historical citation concerning the attainment of this land of Kentucky  by my ancestors from the Native Americans. I originally used the word  “Indians” for which I was rebuked and I calmly reciprocated to avoid unnecessary controversy.  This she also could not refute. That was why I came to the University, which I explained to her very clearly.

3. Having seen that she could not find fault with my initial purpose, she de-railed my entire speech. She then asked me when I have ever been turned down for a job because of my race. I ceased from my public speaking voice and moved away from my center position of the roped in area, approached Rae and replied in a common speaking voice, for she was now just a few feet away, “I don’t know, probably not.” (As if racial discrimination is the only kind. I have been denied scores of jobs because of my religion and my belief in the 4th commandment; and my scholarship money for college was taken from me when I became a Presbyterian in 2007) She then moved to speak on issues of racial equality. I admitted that I didn’t believe in universal equality and that some proportions of exploitation are fine in certain circumstances. In justification of this affirmation I referenced, in my common speaking voice, Leviticus 25:44-46 (Deuteronomy 23:20 is also a good passage).  At this point Rae accused me of hate speech. This is now Rae’s third lie. I did not “yell pro-slavery…sentiments to a group of black students”. I spoke in a common speaking voice, pro-slave institution sentiments personally to her.

4. Rae made the argument that there are Protestants also involved in the Corporate Fascist Cartel capitalist establishment here. I replied that they were crypto-catholic members of Roman Catholic extension groups like the Knights of Malta [here] [and the Masonic Lodge as I showed here].   She, having no information on this issue, got frustrated and refused to believe that my statement was relevant. I informed her of the order of the Jesuits and their oath which obligates them to infiltrate Protestant groups. (Which is no conspiracy theory. Check out the masonic symbols that the PCUSA attaches to their confessions and creeds here. One can easily discover the masonic infiltration of the Southern Baptist Convention by visiting one of their parking lots on any given Sunday. I have witnessed many Masonic symbols and license plates on the cars of members of the Clifton Baptist Church here in Louisville, which is supposedly a hub of “Reformed Theology”.) I also informed her of the Jesuit racial liberation agenda which began in South America. She had obviously read nothing of this. Rae had asked me what organization I was with and I told her that I was a member of no organization or Church because the Protestant Reformation has been annihilated here. I then informed her that because of this I felt the obligation to start a Church.

5. Having completely derailed the conversation, I became internally frustrated  at her open diversion.  She then started yelling at me, “Get mad, Get mad!” I replied by stating that I was encouraged that she had to change the subject to try and demonize me.

Rae never told me she published this article and seeing she mentioned the name of my attempt to begin a Protestant Church here she was aware of how to contact me. This is additionally curious. Was I just a PR stunt for her? Was I simply a way to draw attention to her work?

In the liberal feminist mind, it is perfectly acceptable to tell public lies about our opponent’s for our own self promotion. This is the arrogance that feeds the liberal agenda to  demonize our ancestors. Rae knows very well that if Christian culture and the Bible becomes elevated once again, her Feminist de facto “rights” will be taken from her and she will have to lay down her hate and arrogance and submit to natural law. Thus demonizing me and all of Historical Christian Civilization is Rae’s raison d’être. What a sad waste of life.

P.S. Notice, that Rae falls into the exact same manipulation that I predicted she was being manipulated by. Rae says,

“Charles R. Lawrence III, a remarkable author and law professor at Georgetown, published an article back in 1990 in the Duke Law Journal called “On Racist Speech.”

Here we have Rae relying on a Professor at one of the biggest, I think the second biggest, Jesuit school in America! I rest my case folks.

%d bloggers like this: