Racism Unbound (4)

corruption-catastropheThe Catastrophe of Unaccountability


A primary theme of this blog has been unmasking the moral corruption and intellectual incompetence of the Progressive movement.  What’s shocking is the brazen manner in which the members of this movement now advertise these appalling traits.  In decades past there was a carefully orchestrated attempt to advance Progressive goals under the cloak of moral seriousness and intellectual superiority.

What is currently occurring in the Progressive movement is the catastrophic success of this strategy.  That is, so successfully did the Progressive Left seize the moral and intellectual high ground that they achieved dominance in our nation’s primary organizational and bureaucratic power centers (as they also did in other nations and international bodies).  This dominance has allowed Progressives to fall into a state of intellectual and moral atrophy that has led to this current situation.

In the 1940s and 1950s this near dominance gave what we now call Progressives an advantage at the margins of intellectual and moral conduct.  However, as far back as 1969 we can find an example in the Chappaquiddick incident of a powerful Democratic politician (Ted Kennedy) getting away with at least negligent homicide due to a news media that was unwilling to demand answers or accountability.

Over time, as the Progressive grip on our institutions increased, what had been a marginal advantage turned into almost total lack of accountability.  For, in effect there was no-one in their power-bubble who would ever question their premises or challenge their conclusions.


We all powerful Progressives are the creators of reality rather than subject to it!

It is in this environment that the Progressive elite so lost contact with reality that they began to believe that they were the creators of reality rather then subject to it.  This is a difficult idea to explain, but one author has made a good start thusly.  The specific issue is the recent Robert Mueller testimony debacle, but one can generalize to cover the larger scope of this post.

Todd diagnosed the Democrats’ problem thusly: “The fact is we are living in this 21st century new type of asymmetrical media warfare that we’re in. And you have a propaganda machine on the right. And that’s what it is. It’s a full-fledged propaganda machine on the right that the Democrats haven’t figured out how to combat very well yet.”

I would feel better about the news media if I thought Todd was just a liar, but, no, I think he is actually clueless. Because as an American journalist he is, just like the Democrats, surrounded by people who reflect and echo his ideas. There’s no one near him to ask: What propaganda machine, Chuck? Aside from one cable station — Fox News — what network, what newspaper, what university, what comedian or movie-maker or search engine or social media does anything but spew left-wing propaganda all day every day? There’s no one to demand he produce his evidence. There’s no one to require him to show his work.

Thus Progressives have concluded that they need not do the hard and uncertain work of debate and persuasion in order to get their way.  Rather, they leverage their positions of power to intimidate opponents into submission to any idea that they decide to be true.  I’ve written before about this situation.

However, I believe the argument can be credibly made that, due to their undeniable success in occupying most key positions of social and organizational power, the Progressive movement has become far too dependent on intimidation at the expense of persuasion.

This strategy is pursued by never acknowledging opposition as being legitimate and by insisting that opposing points of view are motivated by moral defects.  Thus they are not seeking to persuade peers to see their point of view, but rather using social and/or organizational force to obtain submission.

And, the most extreme form of this intimidation is the application of the epithet racist to any person who in any way opposes the Progressive project, be it based on criticism of policy or person.

This is simply a special case of the general Progressive position of dehumanizing any person who they consider to be in opposition to their goals, and particularly those who are a a threat.  To the radical elite Progressives we nonconformists are only one or two steps above a zombie.  They can therefore attack us by any means necessary without shame or human sympathy.  Of course most Progressives don’t go to this extreme.  However, neither do they generally speak out against their fellow Progressives who do.  And, that silence is in effect an endorsement of these vile tactics.

The sad truth is that Progressives have so misused and overused the word “racist” that it has lost all meaning.  For when everyone who voted for President Trump, anyone on the Left who doesn’t blindly follow The Squad’s lead, any black, brown, Muslim, queer

Screen Shot 2019-07-28 at 2.38.22 PM

Oh come on, you’ll have to do better than that to prove your wokeness!

or female who doesn’t submit to woke intersectional ideology or anyone else who is insufficiently supportive of Progressive goals is a “racist” then that includes everyone but the most radical of the Progressive elite (and they’re starting to wonder about each other).  Thus “racist” has become unbound from any connection to reality to become an all-purpose emotional club by which to beat any opposition into submission.

Perhaps that’s why Senator Cory Booker (D. NJ) had to recently call President Trump “worse than a racist.”  For when 95% of the country is already “racist” then a way of proclaiming President Trump to be worse must be found.

But, what a pathetic attempt.  If Senator Booker wants to impress The Squad then he needs to at least go with “worse than Hitler!”

Racism Unbound (3)


Republican politicians who have been the victim of actual physical violence.  Rep. Steve Scalise (left) after his attempted murder by a Progressive supporter of Bernie Sanders; and Sen. Rand Paul (right) after a brutal surprise attack by his Socialist neighbor.

The True Nature of Contemporary Political Violence

In the previous post I said that death threats against anyone, most certainly including The Squad members are terrible.  That being understood, I must point out that The Squad, “some of” whom have received death threats are in no way unique in this regard. The fact is that visible, outspoken politicians (and others) of all parties, skin colors, genders, personalities, religions and ideologies are highly likely to receive death threats.  Thus for Rep. Rashida Tlaib to claim special victimhood because “some of” The Squad has received death threats is incredible.

However, if we peer past The Squad’s hysterics it’s impossible to miss that it is Republican politicians who have been the victims of actual recent violence.  I must ask, has any Progressive politician, regardless of group identity, been the target of a mass murder attempt, as were the Congressional Republicans?  Rep. Steve Scalise (the House Majority Whip) received serious gunshot wounds.

House Majority Whip Steve Scalise (R-La.) is in stable condition after being shot early Wednesday at a baseball practice field in a Washington, D.C., suburb, according to multiple reports.

Scalise was one of several people shot at the practice in Alexandria, Va., where it is believed a single gunman fired dozens of shots at lawmakers and aides who scrambled for cover.

An Illinois man who volunteered for Sen. Bernie Sanders‘s (I-Vt.) presidential campaign in Iowa has been identified in multiple media reports as the shooter. James T. Hodgkinson was shot at the scene and later died from his injuries. 

Scalise’s office said he was in good spirits and had talked to his wife before undergoing emergency surgery after being shot in the hip.

“He is grateful for the brave actions of U.S. Capitol Police, first responders, and colleagues,” the office said. “We ask that you keep the Whip and others harmed in this incident in your thoughts and prayers.”

Had there not been two brave and armed officers present who stopped James Hodgkinson there could have been more than a dozen murdered Congressional Republicans that day.

Or how about Sen. Rand Paul, who was brutally surprise attacked from behind by a Socialist neighbor.  With regard to the physical attack itself:

The Associated Press story described how injuries like this “can lead to life-threatening injuries,” with pain lingering for “weeks or months.”

With regard to the political beliefs and actions of Sen. Paul’s attacker:

The man responsible for attacking Sen. Rand Paul Friday afternoon was an avowed liberal who frequently fought with his neighbors about politics, according to a report Sunday from The Washington Post.

Local citizens say Rene Boucher, the 59-year-old man who assaulted Paul, was a socialist who frequently fought with neighbors about health care policies and other liberal issues. Boucher and Paul, a Republican from Kentucky, are on the opposite end of the political spectrum, they told reporters.

Jeff Jones, a registered nurse who worked with Boucher at the Bowling Green Medical Center, described Paul’s attacker’s politics as “liberal.”

“He was active on social media and said some negative things about the Republican agenda,” Jones said of Boucher, a Bowling Green, Ky., citizen who lives in the same gated community as Paul. “I think it was unfortunate that they lived so close together.”

Boucher is a divorced socialist who is “pretty much the opposite of Rand Paul in every way,” Jim Bullington, a former member of the city commission who knows both men well, told reporters Sunday.

A Facebook account Boucher maintained before the attack contains numerous anti-Republican postings.

Boucher wrote “May Robert Mueller fry Trump’s gonads” in a May post referencing the former FBI director’s investigation into possible collusion between President Donald Trump’s campaign and Russian government.


Kathy Griffin ‘beheads’ Trump in a graphic photo

To these actual acts of violence we can add numerous cases of death threats and public violence, public statements by Progressives threatening violence, and violence pornography against President Trump and Republicans in general (see accompanying photos).  On top of this, it is only Republicans who have been driven out of restaurants by angry, threatening mobs.

Can anyone provide anything close to this level for vicious actual and spoken violence against The Squad or any other Progressive politician?  Heres’s a small sampling of the violent rhetoric being deployed against Republicans.

  • Kathy Griffin ‘Beheads’ Trump in a graphic photo
  • Madonna: “I’ve thought a lot about blowing up the White House.”
  • Snoop Dogg: “Shoots” Trump in the head in a music video
  • Robert De Niro: “I’d Like to punch him in the face”
  • Joss Whedon: “I want a rhino to [F—] Paul Ryan to death”
  • Shakespeare in the Park: Stabs ‘Trump’ to death in performances of ‘Julius Caesar’
  • Rapper YG Threatens Trump with “[F—] Donald Trump” song
  • Marilyn Manson: kills ‘Trump” in music video
  • Stephen Colbert’s Late Show: Puts Stephen Miller’s head (a senior advisor for policy for President Donald Trump) on a spike.

Stephen Colbert’s Late Show puts Stephen Miller’s head on a spike

I challenge any Progressive to generate an equivalent list of violent statements and actions by Conservatives against Progressives.  The sad reality is that it is the Progressive camp that most often uses violence, threatened or actual, against their political opponents.

I’m not saying that Progressive politicians aren’t under threat.  I am saying that they are being dishonest and hysterical when they pretend to be under greater or even similar threat to that of their Republican colleagues.  And, this applies particularly to The Squad, who have leveraged their presumed state of victimhood to claims of heightened threat to their personal safety.

Of course, this situation could change in the blink of the eye, so all threats against all politicians (and other citizens) must be investigated, and appropriate protective measures taken.


Racism Unbound (2)

the squad 1

The Squad (left to right): Rashida Tlaib, Ilhan Omar, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Ayanna Presley

A Cowardly and Dishonest Epithet

There’s no point in mincing words.  The Squad has made it absolutely clear that while they are free to hurl hatred for the United States, Israel, Jews, their very own Speaker, President Trump and anyone else they deem fit; anyone who dares to oppose or even criticize them is designated to be a racist. Some of you may be doubtful.  So, here are the words of Rep. Rashida Tlaib in The Squad’s interview with “CBS This Morning” co-host Gayle King.  Note that this statement is with regard to Nancy Pelosi, the Speaker of the House from their own party.

She is Speaker of the House. She can ask for a meeting to sit down with us for clarification. The fact of the knowledge is and I’ve done racial justice work in our country for a long time. Acknowledge the fact that we are women of color, so when you do single us out, be aware of that and what you’re doing especially because some of us are getting death threats, because some of us are being singled out in many ways because of our backgrounds, because of our experiences and so forth.

Rep. Tlaib is clearly saying that even Speaker Nancy Pelosi shouldn’t single them out for criticism because of their race, gender and backgrounds.  And, they are doing so by claiming special protection due to the implicit victimhood associated with these characteristics.

The one specific claim is that some of them have received death threats.  We can all agree that no-one should be receiving death threats.  I can only imagine the upset and fear that reception of such a communication would cause.  However, is it credible that The Squad, because of their race, gender and backgrounds are uniquely threatened?  Do they have the most credible reasons to fear actual physical violence against themselves?  These questions will be explored in the following post.

For now let it be said that these four freshmen Congresswomen claim immunity from any criticism from anyone because of their race.  Thus, anyone who dares to criticize them is by definition acting out of racism to some significant degree; even Nancy Pelosi, Democrat Speaker of the House of Representatives!

Do you imagine that this derangement is limited only to The Squad?  Absolutely not so.  Here’s what powerful Progressive media figures have been saying about Speaker Pelosi.

The Squad has plenty of friends in high places. One such is Karen Attiah, global opinions editor of The Washington Post. On July 14, taking note of Trump’s most recent anti-Squad animadversion—the instantly notorious “go back” tweet—Attiah volleyed her own strong tweeting: “Make no mistake: Nancy Pelosi’s dogwhistling snipes at @AOC, Ilhan Omar, @RashidaTlaib and @RepPressley helped pave the way for this vicious, racist attack from the president.”

Today, through this infidels versus heretics prism, we can see plenty more evidence underscoring Woke anti-Pelosi ferocity. On July 22, left-wing YouTuber Cenk Uygur went even further, declaring in The Wall Street Journal, “Democrats Should Unify Behind AOC, Not Pelosi.” In Uygur’s opinion, “Democratic voters were clear in 2018 that they want Mr. Trump impeached.” And yet, he continued, “There is not a single public official doing more to protect Mr. Trump than she is.” That pro-Trump “she,” of course, is Nancy Pelosi.

But it’s even worse than this.  For the Squad doesn’t apply this immunity from criticism to all people who can claim victimhood under their Intersectional ideology.  In fact, if you are brown, black, Muslim or gay and don’t toe their Progressive line you are persona non grata.  Here are the words of Rep. Ayanna Presley at the Netroots Nation conference explicitly making this point.

Screen Shot 2019-07-21 at 8.32.43 AM

For example, the Congressional Black Caucus (CBC), who despite their black and brown skin decided to vote en masse with the racist Democrat House Speaker rather then with the true “brown, black and Muslim” Squad.  The BCB must be racist (or maybe just traitors to their race)!

“I don’t want to bring a chair to an old table. This is the time to shake the table. This is the time to redefine that table. Because if you’re going to come to this table, all of you who have aspirations of running for office. If you’re not prepared to come to that table and represent that voice, don’t come, because we don’t need any more brown faces that don’t want to be a brown voice. We don’t need black faces that don’t want to be a black voice. We don’t need Muslims that don’t want to be a Muslim voice. We don’t need queers that don’t want to be a queer voice. If you’re worried about being marginalized and stereotyped, please don’t even show up because we need you to represent that voice.”

Do you see?  The Squad has no respect for any person, be they brown, black, Muslim, queer (or a white woman) who doesn’t think exactly like them.  If you are a member of these groups and stray out of the the Progressive camp then you are fair game.  And, if you are outside of these groups then any criticism is racism.

This is not courage or honesty.  No, it is the exact opposite.

The Passing Progressive Parade (3)


Only a small sample of the fraudulent “climate change will end the world in X years” predictions.

Endless Climate Hysteria Insanity Edition

Here’s a vignette that captures the insanity of the climate change true believers.

My family and I were visiting the Milwaukee Art Museum at least a decade ago.  We took an elevator and were joined by two employees of the museum.  One was speaking to the other in the most highbrow, pompous way imaginable about the certainty that the world was going to end if we didn’t do something soon about global warming.  The other employee listened in a posture of deep respect and concern.

It’s safe to say that the speaker wouldn’t know the scientific method if it hit him in the head.  It’s absolutely certain that he knew zero about the intricacies and problems associated with use of computer models to predict complex, chaotic physical phenomena.   But none of that prevented this man from presuming a position of intellectual and moral superiority on “climate change.”  He is my personal poster-child for all the know-it-alls who repeatedly go into hysterics over serially false predictions that “climate change will end the world in X years!”

Oh, I know, “97% of all scientists agree about climate change.”*  In the first place, this statement utterly contradicts the scientific method.  Science is not decided by vote, but rather by evidence and successful prediction of future events (more on this later).  In 1633 know-it-alls could have said “97% of all scientists believe that the earth is the center of the universe.”  In the early 1900s they could have said “97% of all scientists believe the the Newtonian theory of physics is completely accurate.”  Pardon me if I’m less than impressed.

Let’s now return to the issue of the predictive power of a scientific theory.  Here’s how one source describes this concept.

If a theory explains available data, then it should be able to predict what currently unavailable data should look like. … These responses suggest that, at any level in the scientific hierarchy, from a hypothesis to a fully formed theory, the ability to make testable predictions is absolutely essential to science. What constitutes a prediction, and how readily testable they are may vary from field to field, but this quality appears central.

So, I’m compelled to ask: “What is the track record of predictive power for climate science?”  The answer is “pathetically failed!”

And yet, so powerful is the social compulsion to belong to the in-group, so pleasurable is the experience of emotional posturing, that people cast off any semblance of critical thinking even after dozens of failed predictions over decades.

This is indeed the definition of insanity.  But, hey, if it feels good it must be a valid scientific theory!©**

* Note: This claim has been shown to be based on studies that use imprecise, even deceptive methodologies.  The percentage of scientists who believe in the catastrophic climate change theory is likely far lower than the 97% claimed.

** Copyright 1692, Salem Massachusetts.

Lemmings at the cliff

Yes, we must “fundamentally transform” our nation into a Socialist cesspool based on a fraudulent scientific theory to ensure that the planet survives!


Racism Unbound (1)

Screen Shot 2019-07-19 at 4.16.55 AM

Another Step Towards National Perdition

Is anyone satisfied with the current state of our national politics?  The tragic answer is that there are many partisans on both sides who are not only satisfied, but gleeful.  Both the Progressives and Populists appear to think that “their side” has gained political advantage from the recent debate about “The Squad.” The Progressives think that President Trump and his supporters have been convincingly unmasked as racists.  The Populists believe that the Democrat Party has tied themselves to an electoral anchor.

Both of these positions imply that the obtaining of fleeting political advantage is the most important metric by which to assess the situation.  My belief is that the two opposing groups have inadvertently collaborated to move our nation a large step further down the road to perdition.

A Quick Review

Recall that this whole catastrophe began when House Speaker Nancy Pelosi attempted to isolate/minimize The Squad by pointing out that they were a tiny minority of votes in the Democrat Caucus.  Speaking about the border funding bill passed by both the Senate and House, Speaker Pelosi said about The Squad’s opposition:

“All these people have their public whatever and their Twitter world, but they didn’t have any following. They’re four people and that’s how many votes they got.”

This didn’t sit well with The Squad, who hit back on multiple fronts.  But the most surprising counterattack came from their leader, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (AOC, D, NY).

“When these comments first started, I kind of thought that she was keeping the progressive flank at more of an arm’s distance in order to protect more moderate members, which I understood,” Ocasio-Cortez told The Washington Post. “But the persistent singling out . . . it got to a point where it was just outright disrespectful . . . the explicit singling out of newly elected women of color.”

There is no real alternative to interpreting this statement as a thinly veiled accusation of racism against her own Democrat Speaker!  While I’ve previously reported on radical Progressives outside her congressional caucus accusing Speaker Pelosi of racism, this is the first time (to my knowledge) that a House member appears to have done so.

trump-tweets-on-aoc-squad(1)It’s at this point that, for reasons that remain murky, President Trump decided to inject himself into he fray.  The most convincing theory is he was concerned that Speaker Pelosi would be successful in marginalizing The Squad, thus preventing him from hanging them around the Democrat’s necks come the 2020 election.

trimp-tweet-aoc-squad(2)The tweets set off a firestorm of debate, with mixed opinions on the Right and uniform condemnation on the Left.  The focus was on his statement/question about why they don’t “go back” to their countries of origin.

There are numerous lines by which these Presidential tweets could be criticized (e.g., xenophobic, nativist, crude, callous, etc.).  However, the main line chosen by the Democrats was that they are racist.

Screen Shot 2019-07-19 at 6.44.17 AMSo, we ended up with the ludicrous situation that on the House Floor the Speaker who had been recently accused of racism by AOC accused the President of the same and then was rebuked for breaking House rules.  In both cases the charge of racism arose not from anything said that was objectively racist, but rather because criticism was voiced about “people of color.”  That is, regardless of if you are the long time Progressive Democrat Speaker of the House or Republican President of the United States, it was interpreted as racism to voice criticism of The Squad because of their skin color.

Although this isn’t a new concept, it is new (to me at least) that it was deployed equally on political allies and opponents by sitting members of the House of Representatives.

Clearly the concept of racism has been unbound from its traditional dictionary meaning and is now being deployed an a new and disturbing way.

1. a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human racial groups determine cultural or individual achievement, usually involving the idea that one’s own race is superior and has the right to dominate others or that a particular racial group is inferior to the others.
2. a policy, system of government, etc., based upon or fostering such a doctrine; discrimination.
3. hatred or intolerance of another race or other races.

We need to take note and seek to understand what’s happening.

Psalm 4


Ligonier Ministries http://www.ligonier.org) provides opening guidance.

When used of the Creator, light can mean several things, but it is often a reference to His glory, His beneficence, and His love of righteousness. To have the light of God’s face shine upon a person, then, is to have the glory of the Lord shine in a special way on the illuminated individual. It indicates His approval of the person on whom He shines as one who is righteous in His sight.

Scripture describes the experience of God’s light as the greatest blessing that any human being can ever enjoy. This is certainly true of today’s passage, which says that the light of the Almighty’s face brings more joy than the harvest of grain and wine (Ps. 4:7). For an agrarian society like ancient Israel, whose livelihood was dependent on such harvests, this is a powerful statement of the glory of the blessings of the Lord. In keeping with Psalm 4:6, we also see in the Aaronic blessing the idea that life in the light of God is the highest honor for mankind (Num. 6:22–27; John 8:12).

Answer me when I call, O God of my right!
Thou hast given me room when I was in distress.
Be gracious to me, and hear my prayer.

This is the supplication of a humble servant of the Lord.

O men, how long shall my honor suffer shame?
How long will you love vain words, and seek after lies?        Selah

Can the reader not but be struck by the powerful connection to our contemporary situation?  What is the primary purpose of our contemporary radicals other than to destroy the honor of anyone who opposes, or even insufficiently supports, their program?  We have reached the point where supposedly educated, responsible employees of a major corporation, that is Google, labeled three people, two of whom are practicing Jews and all three of whom have had relatives murdered in the Holocaust as “Nazis.”  What is this other than the seeking “after lies” in order to advance a partisan political program?  What is this other than dishonest dehumanization used to silence legitimate political discourse and in the extreme, justifies physical violence?

Yes, lies are told by all humans regardless of their ideological leanings.  However, can anyone name a major corporation that falsely labels mainstream liberals as Communists or Stalinists?  Is there a mirror-image city to Portland, where Mayor Wheeler allows Progressive Antifa to rampage through the streets beating up people and destroying property with impunity; that is a city that offers the same policy to neo-Nazis?  The answers are clearly no.

Am I here claiming that conservatives, libertarians, moderates and classical liberals are “righteous” in God’s sight?  Of course not!

However, neither can we pretend that the contemporary dominant Progressive class have not used their power to dehumanize their opponents through lies.  They dominate the commanding heights of our nation’s major institutions (e.g., mass media, education, entertainment, religious organizations, professional groups, etc.), so their behavior must be carefully scrutinized.

With power comes responsibility, and when power is abused we are within our rights as Christians to call out the perpetrators within context of God’s Word.  Note that Progressive Christians have been doing this for generations.  They therefore have no right to criticize this use of Scripture against the abuses of their ideological fellows.

But know that the Lord has set apart the godly for himself;
the Lord hears when I call to him.

Who are “the godly” in God’s sight?  A Reformed Christian would answer that they are God’s chosen (before the beginning of time) Elect.  The Westminster Confession of Faith begins its teaching on this topic as follows.

1. Although hypocrites, and other unregenerate men, may vainly deceive themselves with false hopes and carnal presumptions: of being in the favor of God and estate of salvation; which hope of theirs shall perish:  yet such as truly believe in the Lord Jesus, and love him in sincerity, endeavoring to walk in all good conscience before him, may in this life be certainly assured that they are in a state of grace, and may rejoice in the hope of the glory of God: which hope shall never make them ashamed.

There is no political dimension to this teaching.  Thus, Christians in good conscience can hold differing political positions.  However, if a Christian starts to justify purposeful dishonesty or dehumanization as political tactics then they should shudder at the implications and repent.

Be angry, but sin not;
commune with your own hearts on your beds, and be silent.        Selah

We are free to become angry at what we believe to be the failings of our opponents, be they political, organizational or other.  However, we are not free as Christians to adopt unrighteous tactics even if our opponents use them against us.

Offer right sacrifices,
and put your trust in the Lord.

All that we can or should do is to in honesty, humility and competence make our best arguments in the marketplace of ideas and then “trust in the Lord” for the end results.  Yes, there are extremities in which acts of defensive violence can be taken.  There are also cases in which lawful force must be used to restore order or to protect the innocent.  However, our first and foremost purpose should always be in pursuit of peaceful resolution of disputes, be they personal, political or international.

There are many who say, “O that we might see some good!
Lift up the light of thy countenance upon us, O Lord!”

It is only through the light of God’s countenance that good can come to pass in this fallen world.

Thou hast put more joy in my heart
than they have when their grain and wine abound.
In peace I will both lie down and sleep;
for thou alone, O Lord, makest me dwell in safety.

We can live in good conscience and peace when we entrust ourselves completely to Christ and obey His commands.

The Progressive Compulsion for Cruelty (4)


But we are not of them who draw back unto perdition; but of them that believe to the saving of the soul.

Hebrews 10:39 (AKJV)

The Road to Perdition

How can people descend to this level of depravity while simultaneously having unshakable confidence in their moral superiority?  And, how can the Progressive community provide support for this depravity either implicitly by their silence or explicitly by their approval?

I have been, in effect, asking these questions for quite awhile (e.g., search this blog on “Decoding Progressivism” and “Making Sense of Progressive Nonsense”).  My recent post on the appalling self-righteousness exhibited by the Progressive community before and after the 2016 Presidential Election is a good first step towards understanding.  However, describing a key symptom doesn’t explain the underlying causes.

end-means-genocideThe Ends Justify the Means

Progressivism is a dangerous combination of utopianism and collectivism.  That is, they believe that human society can be perfected by the application of properly directed collective action.

It is the ends embraced by Progressivism that encourage the descent into extreme self-righteousness.  For if your presumed ends are a utopian state in which all evil has been defeated and all good obtained then to oppose these ends can only be viewed as the rejection of good in favor of evil.  It is within this dynamic that Progressives are capable of hateful, vicious, dehumanizing behavior towards anyone who opposes them, or even who insufficiently support them.

Since their ends are not those which naturally occur in human society an external power must be applied.  That power is found in ever increasing government and institutional authority.  Progressives are forever proclaiming their love for humankind while instituting policies that grind individual humans into the dust.  There is simply no room in their moral universe for ideological diversity.  Therefore it is their collectivist love of humanity that enables their extreme viciousness towards individual humans without the slightest sense of shame or remorse.

victim-cultureIntersectionality and Victim-Based Morality

The ends/means dynamic has been a sufficient driver of Progressive hate for decades past.  However, the more recent addition of victim-based moral superiority under the ideology of intersectionality has turbocharged Progressive temptation to evil.

One helpful definition of intersectionality can be found here.

 the complex and cumulative way that the effects of different forms of discrimination (such as racism, sexism, and classism) combine, overlap, and yes, intersect—especially in the experiences of marginalized people or groups.

It is the combination of group identity and victimization that creates the witches brew of unlimited self-righteousness at play today in Progressive politics.  The following excerpt provides a good summary of our current situation.

For instance, the idea that certain groups have suffered more historical oppression than others and are therefore owed certain entitlements is hardly novel, but the intersectional prescription that historical victimization can be understood as a kind of mathematical equation of oppression, in which the intersection of our various identities creates an imposed moral hierarchy, with the victims at the top and the privileged at the bottom, is a fairly recent phenomenon. It has been ramped up to include ever more historically marginalized groups and encapsulates an ever broader systemic process of oppression. These ideas have become the norm among my generation (millennial), providing an a priori perceptual framework, which leads us to approach many modern problems through the lens of group identity and historical oppression—sorting out the noble victims from the privileged victimizers to establish who symbolically represents the good and who is emblematic of evil. Such a totalizing ideology is primed to stoke reactionary flames on both sides of the political aisle and feed into the culture war in America and elsewhere.

Note that each person associated with extremely vicious moral conduct from the previous posts belonged to at least one victim group:

  • GillibrandTweetVictoria Bissell Brown: feminist woman;
  • Brian Sims: gay;
  • John Roger: black;
  • Kirsten Gillibrand: feminist woman, explicitly embraces intersectionality;
  • Norma Torres: hispanic woman.

Given the identity group based presumption of moral superiority, the “good vs. evil” and “ends justify the means” mentality of Progressive ideology it’s unsurprising that these people feel entitled to conduct themselves in this manner.

The incentive to jump onboard the victim train is so overwhelming that even Progressive white men (the bottom of the barrel in victim-based morality) can’t resist.  For example:

James Livingston, a Rutgers history professor: “OK, officially, I now hate white people. … I hereby resign from my race. F— these people.”


James Livingston (left) and Michael Avenatti (right): white guys denouncing whiteness and white guys.  Perhaps hoping that the crocodile eats them last.

The good white male professor wasn’t done virtue signaling his intersectional  wokeness.

… Livingston wrote on Facebook on May 31 that he’d come from a Harlem burger restaurant that was “overrun with little Caucasian a-holes.”

“OK, officially, I now hate white people,” wrote Livingston. “I am a white people, for God’s sake, but can we keep them—us—us out of my neighborhood?”

And then there’s the MSNBC/CNN endorsed white male presidential candidate:

Michael Avenatti, criticizing the GOP senators during the Brett Kavanaugh hearings: “These old white men still don’t understand that assault victims and women deserve respect and to be heard.”

This ideology by which human beings are assigned moral superiority or inferiority simply by their membership in identity groups has resulted in a whole new level of viciousness in Progressive rhetoric and action.  We haven’t hit anything approaching bottom yet.

Screen Shot 2019-06-15 at 8.32.14 PMThe Abolition of God

The ultimate root cause of this self-righteous madness is the abandonment of the Christian religion (which is based on transcendent revelation) in favor of a secular religion based on Progressive human ideology.  We return to the previously excerpted article for an excellent summation.

Intersectionality is a secular religion: it advocates an all-encompassing worldview, which explains the vast interlocking mechanism of human oppression at the expense of critical reasoning. It even functions like a religion, operating on the basis of an original sin of privilege, excommunicating heretics, awaiting a judgment day in which all oppression with be understood and overcome, and promoting figures who are considered beyond reproach (saints) who purportedly embody the doctrine’s best representatives. Ultimately, intersectionality is a quest for meaning in a world from which religion has been thoroughly uprooted. And, like all religions, it functions in accordance with our deeply felt unconscious needs, rather than our conscious choices and actions. Of course, one can no more reject the human impulse towards religious experience than the existence of gravity, but we can engage in our own personal line of inquiry—in which questions hold more meaning than answers. This is our only bulwark against human vice. And always will be.

Fortunately there are many citizens in the United States who are not subject to this evil ideology.  However the question of their willingness to understand and then effectively oppose this terrorizing creed remains in the balance.

The Progressive Compulsion for Cruelty (3)

Screen Shot 2019-05-13 at 5.41.28 AM

Loud and proud!  A state representative in Pennsylvania accosts young girls and old women with vile accusations and intimidation as they peacefully pray in front of an abortion clinic.

The Totalitarian Face of Abortion Revealed

We have entered a new and shocking phase of Progressive abortion support.  Long gone are the days of “safe, legal and rare.”  In its place we now find the claim that abortion support is a pinnacle of virtue.  Even more appalling, it’s no longer abortion under constrained circumstances, but rather up to the moment of birth and even after birth (i.e., infanticide).  It is this murderous position that Progressives now consider to justify absolutely vile public conduct.

Hateful Harasser of Young Girls and Old Women

For Exhibit A I give you Brian Sims, the Pennsylvania State Representative (D) who publicly assaults young girls and an old woman as they peacefully pray and demonstrate in front of abortion clinics.  His actions are well summarized by Rep. Jerry Knowles (R) and his memo seeking Sims’ censure.

On the first occasion, Representative Sims recorded himself berating, harassing, and violating the First Amendment rights of an individual, whom he labeled, an “old, white lady” for peacefully protesting and praying in public.

On the second occasion, Representative Sims again recorded himself berating, harassing others. He went a step further the second time, though, calling for the “doxing” of three minor children and one adult female. By soliciting strangers on the internet for their personal identifying information (i.e. names and addresses), Sims placed these citizens in reasonable fear for their own safety, merely because they were exercising their constitutional right to peacefully protest.

It should be noted that Representative Sims also used his elected position to intimidate the individuals with whom he was interacting, clearly stating on the videos that he was a member of the Pennsylvania House of Representatives.

Bloody Minded Madness

Screen Shot 2019-06-12 at 5.20.33 AM

Alabama State Rep. John Rogers (D)

Exhibit B is another state representative, this one being Alabama State Rep. John Rogers (D) during a hearing on a proposed abortion bill.  Apparently this statement was intended to change the hearts and minds of those supporting the bill (emphasis added).

“All I’m saying to you is it ought to be the woman’s choice,” Rogers said. “I’m not about to be the male telling a woman what to do with her body. She has a right to make that decision herself. Through rape or incest. Some kids are unwanted. So you kill them now or you kill them later. You bring them in the world unwanted, unloved, you send them to the electric chair. So, you kill them now or you kill them later. But the bottom line is just that I think we shouldn’t be making that decision.”

Since 1983 sixty-six people have been executed in the state of Alabama.  The last execution by electric chair occurred in 2002 (all have been by lethal injection since then).  In other words, less than two people per year have been executed since 1983.  Between 2006 and 2015 an average of 9,641 abortions per year have been preformed in Alabama.  So, by the logic of this bloody minded monster were abortion eliminated:

  • Un-aborted babies would grow up by the thousands to commit capital crimes;
  • The number of executions would rise from less than two per year to thousands;
  • Alabama would reinstitute the electric chair to execute these thousands of new capital criminals per year.

This is the generous but implausible interpretation.  He most likely means that mothers should have the right to condemn their unwanted children to death after birth.

But this vile man wasn’t done (emphasis added).

This [above statement] set off a firestorm, with the president’s son tweeting, “This is stomach curling and makes Ralph Northam look like a moderate on abortion.”

Rogers fired back Thursday, defending his remarks on abortion and personally attacking Trump saying, “That’s an honor. Thank God. Right on … Him being born is the very good defense that I have for abortion. His mother should’ve aborted him when he was born, and then he wouldn’t have made that stupid statement.

Note that this second quote supports the less generous interpretation of this man’s beliefs.

So where were the supposedly morally superior Democrats on this man’s evil rantings, virtually nowhere (emphasis added).

On Wednesday, Republicans denounced comments by State Rep. John Rogers, D-Birmingham, suggesting that children killed in abortions would have to be killed in the electric chair later if they had lived.

Screen Shot 2019-06-13 at 6.29.07 AMMorally Vacuous Presidential Candidate

Lest you leave with the misapprehension that this moral idiocy is limited to low level state politicians I give you the vacuous musings of a U.S. Senator and presidential candidate Kirsten Gillibrand (D., New York).

“If you are a person of the Christian faith, one of the tenets of our faith is free will. One of the tenets of our democracy is that we have a separation of church and state, and under no circumstances are we supposed to be imposing our faith on other people. And I think this is an example of that effort.”

I challenge anyone to discover the logical progression of ideas within they statement.

But Senator Gillibrand wasn’t done.  Later on she compared pro-life beliefs to racism, anti-semitism and homophobia.  Here’s what she said while discussing appointments to the judiciary.

“I think there’s some issues that have such moral clarity that we have as a society decided that the other side is not acceptable,” she said.

“Imagine saying that it’s okay to appoint a judge who’s racist or anti-Semitic or homophobic. Asking someone to appoint someone who takes away basic human rights of any group of people in America—I don’t think that those are political issues anymore.”

In what moral universe does a presidential candidate denigrate roughly half the population as the equivalent to racists, ant-semites and haters of homosexuals for being pro-life?  In the Progressive moral universe exposed by the 2016 presidential candidate Hillary Clinton.


Screen Shot 2019-06-13 at 6.27.51 AM

U.S. Representative Norma Torres (D., CA)

Just when I was finishing composition of this post the following pathetic example rolled-in (emphasis added).

A routine House debate nearly exploded Wednesday when California Democrat Norma J. Torres implied her Republican colleagues were “sex-starved males” for opposing abortion.

Mr. Speaker, it is tiring to hear from so many sex-starved males on this floor talk about a woman’s right to choose,” Torres said as lawmakers debated a rule setting up amendment consideration for a four-bill spending package that includes funding for public health programs.

Torres, one of the newest members of the House Rules Committee, clearly broke House Rules — members cannot personally impugn their colleagues on the floor.

Note that this item nicely ties together the feminist misandry of the previous post with the abortion totalitarianism of this one.

No further comment is necessary.

The Progressive Compulsion for Cruelty (2)

Woman-attackCase Studies: “Entitled” Women Attack “Toxic” Men

The dominant contemporary moral framework defines women as morally superior to men.  Many people consider this attitude to be due to the millennia of men believing the opposite about women.  The theory is that current men are benefiting from the centuries-long patriarchy that can only be corrected by an imposition of the opposite conceit.  One is left to wonder if it will take 5,000 years of this correction to finally “balance the scales” of “gender justice.”

Attacking and Humiliating the Men in their Lives

Regardless, this belief has led to numerous cases of women (often wives) humiliating the men in their lives in highly public ways.  The perpetrators clearly feel “entitled” by their designated social superiority to behave in this manner.  I suppose they think that this cruelty is a part of the retributive justice necessary for the historic prejudice of men to be corrected.  In reality they are destroying their own most intimate relationships and sowing distrust, angst and disorder among the general population.

This situation first clearly lit up on my radar when Victoria Bissell Brown’s tirade against all men, definitely including her husband of 50 years, for the outcome of the Bret Kavanaugh affair was published by the Washington Post.  The following short excerpts provide a sampling of this woman’s uncontrollable, vicious rage.

This was 30 minutes of from-the-gut yelling. Triggered by a small, thoughtless, dismissive, annoyed, patronizing comment. Really small. A micro-wave that triggered a hurricane. I blew. Hard and fast. And it terrified me. I’m still terrified by what I felt and what I said. I am almost 70 years old. I am a grandmother. Yet in that roiling moment, screaming at my husband as if he represented every clueless male on the planet (and I every angry woman of 2018), I announced that I hate all men and wish all men were dead.

Although I don’t have any first-hand knowledge about the inner-dynamics of her marriage, the following description of her husband’s response is telling.

My husband of 50 years did not have to stifle a laugh. He took it dead seriously. He did not defend his remark, he did not defend men. He sat, hunched and hurt, and he listened. For a moment, it occurred to me to be grateful that I’m married to a man who will listen to a woman. The winds calmed ever so slightly in that moment. And then the storm surge welled up in me as I realized the pathetic impotence of nice men’s plan to rebuild the wreckage by listening to women.

Is it out of line for me, a mere man, to conclude that Victoria Bissell Brown’s behavior was infantile, cruel and deranged?  Is it impermissible to point out that her seeking out of a publisher for this screed entailed utter contempt for the feelings of her husband?    Also, am I being unfair to notice that her self-described behavior ironically confirms the male prejudice that women are over-emotional?  To sum up, is Victoria Bissell Brown above criticism by a man because she is a woman?  It’s time to firmly answer No! to all of these questions.

There have been other less extreme but still troubling examples of this same dynamic since then.  For example:

Toxic masculinity—and the persistent idea that feelings are a “female thing”—has left a generation of straight men stranded on emotionally-stunted island, unable to forge intimate relationships with other men. It’s women who are paying the price.

Even Good Husbands Are Sexist. Here’s What I Did About Mine.

Entitlement to Spit in the Face of a Man

Screen Shot 2019-06-29 at 8.32.35 PM

The Progressive “New Rules”: “Stephanie Wilkinson is the owner of the Red Hen restaurant in Lexington, VA. … Friday, the Washington Post published a piece in which Wilkinson offers her thoughts on the recent spitting incident involving Eric Trump. You’ll be shocked to learn that Wilkinson is for it (or at least willing to defend it)”  You go girl!

Recently Eric Trump was in Chicago and went to a high end bar.  What happened next would be beyond belief had I not lived through the past decade (emphasis added).

Shortly after Eric Trump had arrived at Aviary, an upscale bar in Chicago on Tuesday night, a young female employee walked up to him and spit in his face. According to Breitbart, an eyewitness said the woman “murmured inaudibly something that sounded like it was anti-Trump.”

ABC5 Chicago’s Mary Ann Ahern reported that the offender was immediately handcuffed and taken into custody by Trump’s Secret Service agents. She was later released after Trump declined to press charges.

This was a clear case of assault, but given the cultural circumstances no charges were filed.  To her credit the new mayor of Chicago criticized this act.  I will be stunned if there is significant criticism from the Progressives about this woman’s behavior.  In their moral universe this is just the act of a victim fighting back against one of her oppressors (see the above cited Washington Post oped).

In a sane world this deranged employee would have been fired on the spot and hauled before a court to account for her assault.  But, apparently since she can claim the role of a “victim” and the real victim of this assault was a Progressive “enemy,” nothing of the kind has occurred.  Please pardon me if I draw conclusions about the true moral standing of the Progressive movement based on this and the previous case.


I can almost understand how the secular culture could have come to believe that men are inherently worse than women, but it is a theological scandal that the same has occurred in Christianity.  When the Apostle Paul, quoting multiple Psalms, wrote in Romans that:

“There is no one righteous, not even one;
there is no one who understands;
there is no one who seeks God.
All have turned away,
they have together become worthless;
there is no one who does good,
not even one.”
“Their throats are open graves;
their tongues practice deceit.”
“The poison of vipers is on their lips.”
“Their mouths are full of cursing and bitterness.”
“Their feet are swift to shed blood;
ruin and misery mark their ways,
and the way of peace they do not know.”
“There is no fear of God before their eyes.”  (Romans 3:10-18 NIV).

he is making a universal declaration regarding the human condition.  Thus, we are all, male and female, under the same curse of sin.  Yes, men and women tend to manifest this common sinfulness in different ways.  But the underlying condition is exactly the same.  And yet we have not just tolerated, but in many cases actually encouraged feminist theology that claims moral superiority for women and moral depravity for men.

The Christian Church has thus in many cases surrendered itself to the dominant secular ideologies running rampant in our culture.  It should rather be a confident, faithful beacon of truth that opposes the soul-destroying beliefs sadly personified by Victoria Bissell Brown and her sisters in misandry.

There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.  (Galatians 3:28, NIV)


The Passing Progressive Parade (2a)

Screen Shot 2019-07-14 at 4.50.07 AM

Not a Good Look, Wealthy Progressives!

In a recent post I satirically proposed that our wealthy Progressive betters “can convince the deplorable masses through leadership by example” on immigration policy.  Little did I know that a mere day later an article would be published titled “San Francisco: wealthy opponents of new shelter claim homeless are bad for environment.”  This article adds more proof (as if more were needed) that in this time of Progressive dominance reality is making satire obsolete.

I mean really, even the Babylon Bee couldn’t make this stuff up.  From the article in question (emphasis added):

The wealthy San Francisco residents who launched a crowdfunding campaign to block construction of a new homeless shelter in their waterfront neighborhood are employing a new tactic: arguing that homeless people are bad for the environment.

In a lawsuit filed against the city of San Francisco and the California State Lands Commission, the residents called for the project to undergo an environmental review before breaking ground.

“This project will have a significant effect on the environment due to these unusual circumstances, including by attracting additional homeless persons, open drug and alcohol use, crime, daily emergency calls, public urination and defecation, and other nuisances,” the lawsuit states.


San Francisco human poop map.

But, BUT, these are the exact conditions that residents of and visitors to San Francisco are forced to endure when they walk the streets of this previously beautiful city!  And, AND, the policies that have led to this appalling state are those demanded by the very same wealthy, virtue signaling people who are trying to keep their neighborhood free from these same conditions.

I guess leading by example isn’t in the cards.

Their position is: “Our superior virtue is proved by the extent of suffering that we are willing to impose on the less fortunate in pursuit of our utopia!”