Genesis, Egalitarianism and Pride Month

The creation narrative of Genesis has been the focus of an unrelenting attack for over a century by the enemies of God in the Western World. Christians who regard the early chapters of Genesis as a divinely revealed, accurate account of the origins of the cosmos have long been ridiculed and mocked by the university elites, by Hollywood and its degenerate pop culture, and by liberal spiritual figureheads. Zealots! Religious Fundamentalists! Backwater, Knuckle-Dragging Simpletons!

The contempt that the intelligentsia have for Bible-believing Christians is palpable. Since that fateful Tennessee courtroom decision back in July of 1925, the steady stream of ad-hominins directed at the faithful has been persistent. While the headwaters of the insult stream continue to flow, the content has changed as of late. Intolerant! Haters! Nazis! Homophobes! Misogynists! Racists! Heteronormative Binary Bigots! It seems today that Bible-believing Christians are no longer simply pea-brained troglodytes, but now also suffer some sort of moral impairment.

What impairment? Well, they dare challenge the legitimacy of Clown World’s modern dogma: Sexual Orientation, Feminism, Transgenderism, and Open-Borders Globalism, to name a few. Yes, most conservative Christians believe biological men should use the men’s restroom and not the stall next to little Suzie, despite whatever spiritual illness the man may suffer from or whatever note he may have from his quack of a licensed physician. Christians maintain these backwards moral stances because what is obvious to them and what has been a fundamental tenet of civilization throughout human history has suddenly become superstition in the minds of our degenerate moderns. What superstition? Namely, that men are men. Conversely, women are women, and it follows that marriage is intended for one man and one woman to come together and form a life-long covenant bond. They bring forth children and train them and men are supposed to do the masculine things that they were created and equipped to do, and women are supposed to do the feminine things that they were created and equipped to do. Scandalous.

Yet, conservative Christian leaders have warned for over a century that the cost of discarding the Biblical account of Creation would undermine the authority of Scripture in other areas. While Evangelicals were rightly fretting over whether someone could still believe in Jesus while they were taught Darwin in public school, no one noticed the godless horde’s flanking maneuver which presently threatens Western Civilization in the here and now. Sure, firefights over evolution and creation continued and continue to this day, but the theatre of operations has expanded. Genesis 1:1 is now a scarred-over battleground and Genesis 1:27 is the new front. Our modern atheist now not only denies God but now logically and systematically applies this atheism to deconstruct the natural world around by raging against cis-genderism and fighting for trans-rights and open borders, while attempting to shame you for your white male privilege. You see, the enemy is now employing the godless anarchy of egalitarianism to expand the war against Genesis to something I refer to as “creation categories.”

Creation categories can be likened to hard-stops, run-only programs, or hardened barriers that God has built into the cosmos that bring order to the world and facilitate the intended function of its moving parts. An important point to remember is that these categories include definitions, prescribed functions, and delineate proper relations to one another and all three facets of creation categories, as described in Genesis, have been under relentless assault by Team Weimerica. Scripture describes other creational categories too, such as families, households, tongues, tribes, and nations and these things are under attack as well. However, for our purposes we are going to explore how egalitarianism has been employed by the godless forces of modernism against the created order of human sexuality as defined by Scripture. First, due to our cultural programming, we must suffer through some pedantic review for anyone under 40 who may read this.

Definitionally, God created humanity to be either male or female. Each person is equipped with the requisite biological hardware and programming as prescribed by the Creator so that their sexual identity is burned into their DNA. Sex, and therefore gender, is assigned when a sperm fertilizes an egg, not when Little Johnny or Little Suzie officially decides whatever gender they want to be. Men are men because they were genetically conceived that way. They can’t become women and to believe so is to deny physical reality. They can surgically mutilate and castrate themselves and turn their bodies into a walking, talking, medical freak show, but their gender, sex, and DNA cannot change. It’s not a difficult concept to understand, but to say so in some of the radically tolerant quarters of Clown World will get you strung up and lynched by the rainbow glitter mob for felony crime think. Indulging these poor, disturbed individuals in their delusions and carrying on as if it gender-dysphoria was normal and sexual identity is dynamic is no less an act of cold indifference and genuine hatred.

Functionally, men, now endowed by their Creator to do men things, go forth and exercise dominion. With their broad shoulders, strong backs, and aggressive psyche, they provide and protect as they were commissioned by God to do so. Masculinity isn’t toxic, it is good and necessary. Women were created to be a help-meet to man. With their specific biological endowments and caring, empathetic nature, they bear children and nurture young ones while tending and cultivating the home. Men are to find their purpose, meaning, and happiness in being men and not by being women. Likewise, women are to find their purpose, meaning, and happiness in being women and not by being men. Men are to be masculine. Women are to be feminine. This, dear reader, is modern heresy.

Relationally, men are to enter into sexual unions with women, and not with other men. Women are to enter into sexual unions with men and not with other women. We clearly understand the basic mechanics at work when we plug in electrical appliances but somehow we magically forget the lesson when it comes to the design of our genitalia. One man is to unite with one woman for a lifetime within a marriage covenant. You see the definition (male/female), which is hardwired into human DNA, prescribes a unique function to the male sex and separate one to the female sex, and relationally, instinctual behavioral patterns direct the ways that members of the opposite sex relate to one another. These creational categories are good, and the separation of the constituent parts of each category (male/female) and the maintenance of their respective functions (masculinity-fatherhood/femininity-motherhood) and proper relation to each other (marriage-sex) are all essential for civilization. All three aspects of creation categories are either clearly delineated or can be easily deduced from Scripture, and comprise an essential part of the moral law… and it is that law, the patterns and principals that lay behind it, and the God that spoke them into existence, that are the real target of attack by the armies of darkness.

We should probably just come out and say it- modernism is a mental disorder. Modern progressives have laid siege to practically every facet of traditional civilization by using egalitarianism as an effective battering ram.  It is helpful to think of egalitarianism as a flattening out of the distinct characteristics of biblical creation categories. Modern egalitarians willfully disregard the inherent differences, they deny the distinct functions, and pervert the natural relations of creation categories. Egalitarianism looks at creation and instead of seeing design, harmony, and order, it sees only archaic rules, inequality, and oppression. It interprets the world using Critical Theory (thanks again, Frankfurt School) and in a very binary fashion, places everyone into one of two baskets- victims and oppressors.

Every line that is laid down by tradition is a line to cross and every barrier erected by God is a wall that must come down. It breeds anarchy and chaos through constant revolution. Egalitarianism succeeds today because it plays on the two most prolific sinful tendencies of man- idolatry and covetousness. Moderns worship the self and pay homage to the cult of the individual freedom while craving things that they are forbidden by traditional society and the Christian God to have. The heart wants what the heart wants after all. Egalitarianism is inherently progressive and fundamentally destructive. We are all familiar with the popular egalitarian application of feminism and most of us are familiar with the destructive consequences birthed by feminism.

However, egalitarianism has been cleverly applied across a much broader spectrum; greater than most realize, and the civilizational destruction wrought by this godless anarchy is staggering. In the second part of this article, we will cover the 80-year march of egalitarianism and it’s war on Genesis and creation from the Suffrage Movement and the 19th Amendment to the godless parade of depravity that is Pride Month. After we are finished, we will clearly see the revolutionary thread connecting the movements of feminism and Big Sodomy and will be better equipped to defend our people against the ever-creeping lawlessness of egalitarianism and the depraved maniacs that push it.

-By OH


  1. Cultural liberals have painted themselves into a corner. First, they have adopted a set of ideals that is repulsive not only to theologically conservative Christians but to the vast majority of the human race, including the whole non-Western world (except for an influential but very small minority of Westernized foreigners). Second, they insist on adopting positions that are in opposition both to Christian revelation and also to evolutionary theory. Evolution is viewed by them as a useful weapon to be wielded against Christianity (and monotheism in general), yet it is a weapon that is more dangerous to cultural liberalism than it is to Christendom. Both liberals (or Modernists if you prefer) have tended to think of Darwinism as having “liberal” implications, but that is a total misreading of the theory by both camps. In truth, the implications of Darwinian theory are profoundly conservative, and there is in fact a category of persons that might best be described as evolutionary or Darwinian conservatives. (For example: ) Liberalism’s values are impractical and dysfunctional, yet it remains a force to be reckoned with because, and almost entirely because, of cultural liberals’ control over every major institution in Western civilization, with some additional strength from a human tendency to favor an ideology that offers to permit and even to condone man’s most hedonistic impulses.

    My own view is that modernism’s worst nightmare would be for theological conservatives to embrace theistic evolution, which some Christians, such as 19th century Anglican Archbishop Samuel Wilberforce, have recommended from the very beginnings of the Darwinian debate. Even the conservative Russian Orthodox Church decided, under the old Tzarist regime, not to anathematize evolutionary theory per se, but only those who say that the world came into being apart from the will of God, that is, atheistic interpretations of evolution, a theory that has been kicking around, off and on, at least since the days of Aristotle, and which was reinvigorated by Charles Darwin’s theory of natural selection which that former divinity student formulated while he was still a Bible quoting evangelical. (Afterward, the infidels flocked to Darwin’s side, and he gradually adopted their godless worldview, an example that seems to confirm the conclusion of some sociologists that conversion is, in most cases, simply a natural process adopting the beliefs of one’s friends, which is why it is important to choose one’s social circle carefully.)

    Although reconciling Christian theology with Darwinian theory poses some intellectual problems, such as how to reconcile evolutionary theory with the doctrine of fall and redemption, and a few other questions, I do not think that any of these problems is insurmountable–and least of all hermeneutical questions, which many people mistakenly assume is the primary obstacle to “baptizing” Darwinism. The critical divide is not between Darwinists and anti-Darwinists (many Modernists are profoundly anti-Darwinian when they realize its full implications, offering it little more than lip service), but between theists (Darwinian or not) and humanists, the latter group consisting of atheists, agnostics, and deists, who share many core values and who tend to cluster together socially and politically, and to intermarry among themselves.

    1. CORRECTED SENTENCE: ” Both liberals (or Modernists if you prefer) AND CHRISTIANS have tended to think of Darwinism as having “liberal” implications, but that is a total misreading of the theory by both camps.

    2. …an example that seems to confirm the conclusion of some sociologists that conversion is, in most cases, simply a natural process adopting the beliefs of one’s friends, which is why it is important to choose one’s social circle carefully.

      No doubt. Someone wise once said something to the effect that ‘you are the average of the five persons closest to you.’ “Choose your friends wisely” is always good, sound advice.

      …the latter group consisting of atheists, agnostics, and deists, who share many core values and who tend to cluster together socially and politically, and to intermarry among themselves.

      Thus adhering to the biblical admonition to not unequally yoke themselves together with unbelievers. Wait, what?!

  2. …from the Suffrage Movement and the 19th Amendment to the godless parade of depravity that is Pride Month.

    They don’t call themselves the Folsom Street Degenerates for nothin’. But you know what “Rooster Cogburn” said about the female suffrage movement: “If they ever give ’em the vote, God help us!”

    Regarding Archbishop Chaput’s quote: funny thing about the word “tolerance” is that it implies disagreement. As others have pointed out before, one doesn’t “tolerate” that with which (s)he is in agreement; (s)he embraces it.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.