Positive XP

My wife was formerly promiscuous. I was a virgin. She was then radically born-again. Committed to church, evangelized constantly, Puritan books in her bedroom, prayer journals, grief over past sexual sin, etc. We got to know each other well for over a year, dated for four months, engaged for two and a half, and didn't sin sexually with one another. Our first kiss with each other was at the altar on our wedding day (reaction pic attached!). We've been married for over five years now, and she's been the most wonderful and godly wife, mother to our three children, and homemaker you could imagine. She's more pure than most virgins, as biblical purity has less to with past sins (though they certainly matter) and more to do with one's current posture of the heart and daily decisions to honor the Lord (Matt. 5:8). We're far too quick to forget the story of the woman labeled as a known "sinner" (likely a prostitute) in Luke 7:36-50 who was washing Jesus' feet with her tears while kissing them too. The Pharisees were shocked that Jesus let a public sinner do this. Jesus responded with a parable about debts being forgiven and ended with this powerful conclusion: "Her many sins have been forgiven; that’s why she loved much. But the one who is forgiven little, loves little" (Luke 7:47). Everyone seems to highlight the benefits of virginity, and it certainly is a blessing. But we forget to highlight the benefits of being forgiven much as well. My wife knows the depths of Jesus' forgiveness more than most people, enabling her to more easily live out a life of passionate love for her Savior. A woman or man's past sexual sin matters. But what matters far more when it comes to deciding who to marry is if the person is truly born again, if their repentance is real, if they truly have a heart for Christ, if they truly follow Jesus and obey his commands. "God has chosen what is foolish in the world to shame the wise, and God has chosen what is weak in the world to shame the strong. God has chosen what is insignificant and despised in the world ​— ​what is viewed as nothing ​— ​to bring to nothing what is viewed as something, so that no one may boast in his presence. It is from him that you are in Christ Jesus, who became wisdom from God for us ​— ​our righteousness, sanctification, and redemption, — in order that, as it is written: 'Let the one who boasts, boast in the Lord.'" (1 Cor. 1:27-31) "Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation; the old has passed away, and see, the new has come!" (2 Cor. 5:17)

I’ve known Michael for many years. I don’t recall when we first met in person, but we became friends over three years ago. For much of that time, he lived near me. We’ve been to each other's houses. Our families have had dinner together, and our kids have played together. On a few occasions, he volunteered to help me with projects on the property: building a deck, moving felled trees, and other things. His wife is kind. He has good kids. Michael was repeatedly kind to me. I’ve spent more time with him than 99% of his critics, though I haven’t seen him much in the last year or so. I once said that Michael is a “friend” and “a good man”—-something used against me for nearly a year now. No critic has asked what I meant by it, and my default response is to ignore such people. I was referring to his kindness and generosity to me, and to his concern for my spiritual well-being, which surpassed that of many people in my life. Mindful of this history, and out of loyalty to a friend, I did not denounce or openly distance myself from Michael as he began to embrace positions that I reject. This came at great personal cost, not only for me but especially for my family. Online agitators and tale-bearers, most of whom are incapable of argument, insinuated that Michael and I are “fellow Nazis,” despite my numerous articles, videos, and books contradicting that claim. I do not expect any session or presbytery to correct these sinful accusations (WLC 144), despite several coming from those vowed to maintain the “peace of the church.” Michael knows the cost of being associated with him. He knows that anything he says places burdens upon others. I chose to endure them. An elderly man at my previous church—known and well respected in both the OPC and the PCA—encouraged me to remain friends with Michael for his sake, and I did. But the post below is a turning point for me. It represents a complete disregard for those who bear the costs of any degree of association. When consideration of others goes repeatedly unreciprocated, there comes a breaking point. It begins to look like exploitation. Obviously, “Christian prince” is a term I retrieved from the Protestant tradition, and it immediately recalls my work. Michael had to know that I, yet again, would be dragged into accusations of Naziism, even from those of decent will. He chose words (when there are alternatives) that instantly recall “Stephen Wolfe.” It is an act of betrayal. He has not considered how his actions affect others. He could have easily added, “I know that Stephen Wolfe does not agree with me.” But he did not. As I’ve said for years now, I have no interest in retrieving Naziism, nor do I want a “Protestant Hitler.” Michael knows this, as I’ve said to him (among others) that revising 1930s German history is unnecessary to critique the “post-war consensus”. I am right-wing, but I am an American. By today’s standards, American history is right-wing, and it contains all the resources for recovering a manly, moral liberty and a Christian society. Anglo-Protestantism, despite its faults, is still the core tradition of America. Our fight is to recover it. I have a high tolerance for differing opinions. I do not shy away from references to Marx, Nietzsche, Hegel, Heidegger, or “critical theory.” Viewing everything with the good/evil binary, or relying on a set of scary words to categorize intellectual history and various individuals, is unserious. I even use Marx in my MA philosophy thesis. But I would not say that we need a “Protestant Marx” or a “Protestant Heidegger”. We need a George Washington. Given Michael’s behavior—his disregard for my position and the effects of his actions—I can no longer consider him a friend. But I will not take on a mission to destroy him. I will not toss epithets at him or make quips for spectacle. I simply cannot continue in what I consider an exploitive relationship. I pray that Michael and his lovely family would live well in godliness.

"Protestant Hitler" is the right term for the Christian prince we need today. By "Hitler" we name our need for ruthless anti-Judaism and anti-leftism, without which our nation will never be rescued. But by "Protestant" we name our urgent need for solid piety.

A huge part of being a feminist is coming to terms with the fact that you will become unlikeable. People are going to hate you and your guts. Do not let this deter you from feminism.

Doomerism is cancer. For years I've made war on the doomers and believe they are totally poison. There is a whole zone on here full of the most resentful nasty people who want to suck others in and down into their hole which is full of anger, depression, and hate. Ultimately they have a group therapy circle here where they air their grievances in escalating language. The more hyperbolic, the more exaggerated, the more fantastical, the more masochistic - they want to be unhappy - the better, the more likes, the more feeling of righteous indignation. They demand you acknowledge their complaints and when you tell remind them that the world is indifferent to any complaints and all that matters is results and that we all have to change our own lives for ourselves, they only get more angry. I am so against all of it because I have kids and I think about what I would want them consuming on the internet when they are in their 20s and it sure as hell wouldn't be that toxic stew of pitiful knee-capping crap. The entire doomer group therapy circle is pure poison and everyone should do their best to remove yourself from them as much as possible. You need to be muting and blocking, kicking them out, forcing them to unfollow. Pure poison.

If any other ethnic group had their existence denied, while being displaced by millions of imported people who commit crimes against them because of ethnic differences, this would be called a genocide. So why is it different when it happens to the English?

But to answer your question, even though your dodging the discussion here, yes I think the oppression of white men in contemporary America is worse than what black slaves went through in America. I would argue that the fact black slaves had a lower suicide rate than white men today largely speaks to this. Clearly the institutional pressure against Whites is more destructive on them than slavery was for blacks.