Charlie Kirk and the Piercing Darkness of the Evangelical Singles Mingle

Charlie Kirk is here pictured cavorting with a tranny. Charlie Kirk is going to hell, and if you follow him, you’re going to the same place he’s going.

On Saturday, I reported on a Seattle church that had scheduled an appearance by Charlie Kirk, but then canceled the event after Antifa threatened to burn the church down and the police said they wouldn’t do anything to prevent that.

The pastor of the church appeared in a tracksuit to give a surrender message.

This situation presents a good opportunity to reflect on the current state of Christianity in America.

As we know well, Antifa has an anti-Christ agenda. They’ve been involved in attacks on churches for years now, and in their literature, they clearly associate Christianity with “white supremacist imperialism” or whatever other series of hollow, inane buzzwords.

The problem is that Charlie Kirk, a man who is being presented as a Christian champion of some kind, spews talking points that are not all that different than those of Antifa.

Like Antifa, Kirk supports transgenderism.

Like Antifa, Kirk supports using foreign policy as a means to coerce third world countries into normalizing gay sex.

Like Antifa, Kirk supports an open-borders style immigration policy for America (he argues that we should crush the culture and national identity of the American people with fifty million immigrants in ten years).

Like Antifa, Kirk supports a racial Jewish state in Palestine, backed by the blood and treasure of White Christians.

If you combed through his material, I think you would find that Kirk supports more or less every other major policy of Antifa. We can joke that the only thing they fundamentally disagree on is tax policy, but I’m not really sure that’s a joke. When you strip the doctrine of Charlie Kirk and the doctrine of Antifa down to their core philosophical components and compare them to one another, it is very hard to find a meaningful difference.

If you were to summarize this shared agenda, it is basically a push for a globalized system of rootless “individuals” serving an international financial cartel. Neither Kirk nor Antifa would state their agendas as such, but again: break them down to their components and see what you find. The only reason you would support both mass immigration into white countries AND using the power of the American Empire to force anal norms on foreign countries would be that you’re trying to erase individual cultures by breaking apart cohesiveness and attacking society’s moral foundations. The only conceivable reason you would want to do that is to create a centralized global empire, ruled by banks and multinational corporations.

It’s a big problem to have a situation where your supposed champions are so close in thought to your open enemies. What is the background on this? What structures exist to support the heretical Charlie Kirk doctrine?

The Kirk Church

Given all of the weirdness surrounding the ideological overlap between Kirk and Antifa, I was interested in what kind of church would be hosting Charlie Kirk, and which Antifa would then threaten to burn down.

Contrary to what you might have expected, Kirk was not speaking at “The Church of the Holy African Gay Anus.” The church is called “Motion,” and seems to be a standard pop culture evangelical church.

I went back and watched the most recent sermon of the church’s pastor, Roger Archer.

It was a sorry sight. Along with the standard stand-up comedy routine littered with pop culture references that we are used to seeing from these evangelicals, this sorry man literally played clips from Hollywood movies. This entertainment variety show was peppered with various vague, feel-good platitudes about “serving God,” which never once during the 45-minute sermon materialized as practical, real-world instruction on actions or behaviors. He read some verses from 1 Kings about the Prophet Elijah standing against the prophets of Baal, but never bothered to explain what the parallel is for modern Christians.

“Standing up for God” was an action that is left blank for the members of the flock to fill in in their own heads, as they so choose. To give a sermon in such a morally confused time that contains no moral instruction is standard, but it remains beyond the pale.

The one thing the pastor did do was push back against the Virus Regime. This is good, and something churches should be doing. However, all things considered, this is really low-hanging fruit. He also failed to elaborate on why it is that the government doesn’t have a right to take our freedoms. His failure to do that seemed to just be a result of a genuine lack of understanding of Christian moral doctrine. I don’t think it would have offended his target demographic to hit on the concept of Natural Law, and quote St. Thomas Aquinas, Cicero and Aristotle. Instead, he primarily zoomed in on the fact that Virus Law is annoying.

Aside from his jabs at the governor over Virus Law, I did see bits and pieces of sentiment I could agree with, but it was just so vague. He says “God first” and all this, but never explains what he’s even talking about. What does it mean to “serve God first”?

Singles Mingles in the Church Lobby

At one point during the sermon, Archer says that half the church is singles. This is what many or most of these modern evangelical churches are – they are singles meet-ups. They market themselves to people who have exhausted themselves trying to find a mate at the bar, and are getting old. These sorry folks show up at these churches thinking that this is some better scheme for mating. (Unfortunately, it’s actually just all the same people from the bar, who all have the same idea to try the church.)

These people who go to the singles’ meetup church will pay their “entrance fee” when the collection pot comes around, throw a twenty or a fifty or a hundred – maybe even more if they’re trying to show off to the singles they’re sitting next to. So that is what the church is built around. Even if the pastor didn’t set out to do that, this is where he ends up as a result of market forces. 

The obvious thing that then happens is that in order to bring in the men who are going to be throwing the hundreds in the pot, he needs to bring in the single women, which means he has to severely restrict what he is allowed to talk about. He can’t start calling out slut behavior, or fatness/health issues, or even abortion. If women are made uncomfortable, they will go to another church, and the men will follow. That means he has to keep everything relatively vague.

The coronavirus thing is actually a blessing for these kinds of evangelicals, as it gives them something specific to rail against that doesn’t bother a lot of women. Certainly, more women are on-board with the coronavirus agenda than men, but as a general thing, anyone who is going to go to a church, regardless of their sex, is probably going to be the kind of person that is fed up with Virus Law.

The kind of women who are ride or die with Lord Fauci are members of the Cunt Class who aren’t going to be showing up at a church to try to find a husband, even in their thirties. Anti-lockdown talk is going to be safe generally, and at the very least, will allow a pastor to serve a market of women who are opposed to the lockdown. Furthermore, because Virus Law closes churches, or at least limits attendance rates, the pastors have a financial incentive to oppose it.

Isn’t It Better Than a Bar, Tho?

A church singles mingle is probably not really much better than a bar, no. If you’re dating women in their late twenties or early thirties, you’re rolling dice that are loaded against you. Where you meet them is largely irrelevant to the math equation. The dice roll is going to be mostly based on your own income level, and the financial background of the woman. All of that pick-up artist stuff disappears when you’re dealing with old women who are going baby crazy as they hear the clock on their wombs ticking.

That said, I don’t think gearing church service towards single millennials in their late twenties and thirties is necessarily wrong. It probably is better that these whores get married late rather than never, and if the pastor is assisting that process, we can’t call him out on that alone.

But here’s an issue: if a couple meets at this church, then gets married, then continues to attend the church, what are they going to get out of these services, as they struggle with the marital problems that all modern people struggle with? Churches are intended to provide people with life instruction, and if a pastor is afraid to offend single women, who he needs for his singles mingle business model, he’s going to be restrained from providing any helpful advice to married couples.

This is the core problem: these pastors have to play to the lowest common denominator. If they don’t turn their sermons into a variety show, with comedy bits and clips from Hollywood movies, then someone else down the street will, and they’ll gobble up all the single women, and the single men will follow.

Decades ago, no church would have gotten away with turning church service into an entertainment show. Sure, they would have been legally allowed to do it, but everyone in the country would have looked down on people who would attend such a service. Therefore, these single old whores would be socially obliged to attend a real, normal church if they wanted to access the church dating pool.

Reducing the church to an entertainment show for women means that real content is going to be actively avoided. Women are fundamentally amoral, and thus most moral instruction bothers them.

A Natural Transformation of the Boomer Church (These are Feminine Values)

This phenomenon of “church as entertainment” did not begin with the millennial singles mingle. It is something we’ve seen for decades in the evangelical church. All of this stuff about “end times prophecy” that these churches rattle on about amounts to entertainment. We may in fact be living in the end times, but you do not need to hear about that constantly. If it is indeed the end times, then the thing you need more than anything is moral instruction.

The boomers loved this end times stuff, and that was also largely driven by women. Women tended to decide what church the family attended during the Age of the Boomer in the 1980s and 90s. This is when the churches were becoming focused on entertainment. The singles mingle was a natural transformation for these churches to make.

It’s been a downward spiral. In the 1990s, there might have still been some sense of a need for moral instruction, but it was always focused on feminine morality, surrounding consensus building and communitarian values. Therefore the teachings would be about “loving each other” and “forgiveness.” I am not opposed to love or forgiveness of course, but if these concepts are not tempered by fairness and justice, your value system is going to spin directly into liberalism and tolerance.

As I said above: it likely would not have offended the female audience to give an impassioned speech about natural law, and man’s God-given rights, and the satanic nature of the government infringing on these rights. These churches could even make that their key theme now, and be giving legitimate moral instruction while also bowing to market factors and not offending the old whores they need to keep the money flowing.

So why not zoom in on the inherent and inalienable rights of man?

I think the answer is that this pastor, like every other evangelical pastor, has simply become accustomed to avoiding all forms of meaningful content, out of fear of losing attendance. They are no longer even looking for places where they can slip in moral instruction.

It’s really a mess.

This is Unsustainable and the Going is Getting Tough

This goofy evangelical nonsense is not sustainable. These churches will collapse under the pressure of the state.

Eventually, there will be a place for a hardcore church, which like the original church, will be underground. Many will be surprised by how many of our people come along with us, when the going gets rough.

It will be very popular. It will even be popular among women. If you are teaching the full hardcore message, men’s job is to control women, which in a woman’s mind frees her from responsibility (which is the only thing any woman actually wants – feminism is just one path to that goal).

Frankly, it is shocking to me that no one has started a real church, preaching a hardcore Christian doctrine. It is not complicated. Everyone in their bones knows right from wrong, and they simply have to embrace it. But I guess we had to get to the point of utter absurdity before things began to swing back the other way.

As Christians, we have a responsibility to call out fiends like Charlie Kirk, and the decadence and corruption of these feminized churches.

Charlie Kirk is not compatible with Christianity:

  • Gay sex is not compatible with Christianity.
  • Coercing Africans into having gay sex is not compatible with Christianity.
  • Mass immigration and racial mixing (Babylon system) are not compatible with Christianity.
  • Transgenderism is not compatible with Christianity.
  • Neither “Capitalist” nor “Socialist” globalism are compatible with Christianity.
  • Support for the satanic Jewish state of Israel is not compatible with Christianity.

To bring everything back to where we started: A true church would not bend to the will of Antifa.

We cannot go without a real Christian church forever. The day is going to come.

Right now, it’s important to understand now what is wrong with these current churches.

I’m going to do my best to continue to keep writing Christian-themed materials on Sundays.