Occasional Confirmations (6)

Screen Shot 2020-01-16 at 6.58.45 AM

Yes, Lenninthinkers

In my most recent book I open with a Preface that discusses the quintessential difference between how the contemporary political administrations reacted to the election of Presidents Obama and Trump.  This discussion is intended to raise the question of why in President Obama’s case the peaceful transfer of power occurred but for President Trump we have (and continue to) experienced resistance that appears to sometimes rise to the level of sedition.  This resistance is not limited to the rank and file citizenry but rather runs to the very top of the Democrat Party’s elected officials and Obama appointed leadership of our federal Justice, Intelligence, Revenue and State Department.  It also includes virtually all of our “mainstream media,” and academic institutions, among others.

In this book (and this blog) I have pointed out that, observing their behavior, one could reasonably posit that they are motivated by a Marxist ideological foundation.  While I do include some information beyond behavioral observations, this idea is presented as theoretical.

It turns out that a serious investigative reporter and author has dug deep into the available information concerning the ideological influences and beliefs of this clique of elite Progressive leaders.  What Diana West found is truly stunning.  In her new book, The Red Thread she reports on:

leninthinkersThe first investigation into why a ring of senior Washington officials went rogue to derail the election and the presidency of Donald Trump. There was nothing normal about the 2016 presidential election, not when senior U.S. officials were turning the surveillance powers of the federal government—designed to stop terrorist attacks—against the Republican presidential team. These were the ruthless tactics of a Soviet-style police state, not a democratic republic. The Red Thread asks the simple question: Why? What is it that motivated these anti-Trump conspirators from inside and around the Obama administration and Clinton networks to depart so drastically from “politics as usual” to participate in a seditious effort to overturn an election?

The Amazon book summary then goes on to identify this question’s answer.

Finding clues in an array of sources, Diana West uses her trademark investigative skills, honed in her dazzling work, American Betrayal, to construct a fascinating series of ideological profiles of well-known but little understood anti-Trump actors, from James Comey to Christopher Steele to Nellie Ohr, and the rest of the Fusion GPS team; from John Brennan to the numerous Clintonistas still patrolling the Washington Swamp after all these years, and more. Once, we knew these officials by august titles and reputation; after The Red Thread, readers will recognize their multi-generational and inter-connecting communist and socialist pedigrees, and see them for what they really are: foot-soldiers of the Left, deployed to take down America’s first “America First” and most anti-Communist president. If we just give it a pull, the “red thread” is very long and very deep.

A very good hour-long interview of West about this book can be found at this link.

Obviously one book doesn’t necessarily confirm my Lenenthink theory.  However, the fact that serious people are discovering compelling supporting evidence, and other serious people are taking this hypothesis seriously is a confirmation worth noting.

This development also provides confirmation of my position that our current crisis is existential for our Constitutional Republic as opposed to just another run of the mill political controversy.

Considering the “Never Trumpers” (3)


Case Studies (2)

Max Boot

Max Boot is a more extreme version of Bill Kristol.  He came up through the ranks as a foreign policy advisor to Republican candidates.  Here’s the section of his bio that deals with this phase of his career.

Boot was a senior foreign policy adviser to John McCain’s presidential campaign in 2007–08, Mitt Romney’s campaign in 2011–12, and Marco Rubio’s campaign in 2015-2016. He served as an adviser to U.S. commanders in Iraq and Afghanistan. He has lectured on behalf of the U.S. State Department and at many military institutions, including the Army, Navy, and Air War Colleges, the Australian Defense College, the John F. Kennedy Special Warfare School, West Point, and the Naval Academy.

Clearly Mr. Boot considered himself to be on the “conservative” side in the area that mattered most to him, that being foreign policy.  However, the election of Donald Trump to the Presidency caused Mr. Boot to ultimately reject his past ideological commitments and embrace their opposite, as is described in this article.

For more than a year now, Boot has been undoing his lifetime of conservatism in a fireworks display of accepting progressive shibboleths. All of this because Donald Trump’s presidency has made him question everything he believes in. This week, his converts’ zeal took a particularly ugly turn as he accused two writers at National Review and the outlet itself of white supremacy.

All of this because National Review dared to discuss many Americans’ unease about the implications of unchecked immigration. The second author he attacked, Dan McLaughlin, wasn’t even agreeing with this unease. He was merely describing it in a 2,300-word essay that Boot slammed based on a single line that wasn’t even in the article.   …

The problem, or perhaps the clarifying reality this week, is that Boot’s holier than thou objections have been shown to be a pile of misrepresentations and flat-out lying.   …

In perhaps his farthest left moment to date, he essentially accuses more than 100 million Americans of being white supremacists.

Mr. Boot soon came out as a proud Progressive in a Washington Post oped.

It would be nice to think that Donald Trump is an anomaly who came out of nowhere to take over an otherwise sane and sober movement. …

Upon closer examination, it’s obvious that the history of modern conservatism is permeated with racism, extremism, conspiracy-mongering, isolationism and know-nothingism. … There has always been a dark underside to conservatism that I chose for most of my life to ignore.

There is nothing possibly temporary (as with Bill Kristol) about Mr. Boot’s conversion.  No, he has rejected “Conservatism” and joined the true faith of Progressivism.  He now hates those with whom he had worked, realizing that they all along were white supremacists, ignorant and simpletons.  There can be no other reason that American citizens elected Donald Trump to the Presidency.  But how could a man of such blazing insight, such brilliant thought, such overwhelming virtue have missed all this evil for so long?  Perplexing, yes?

Considering the “Never Trumpers” (2)



Bill Kristol, Max Boot and Mitt Romney (left to right) … personifications of the Never Trump “conservative” movement.

Case Studies (1)

Do you doubt that the Never Trumper situation is as extreme as claimed in the previous post?  Perhaps case studies on three prominent Never Trumpers will be sufficient to justify this conclusion.

Bill Kristol

Bill Kristol once occupied a top position in the conservative movement.  He was personable, influential and occasionally effective.  Highlights of his career, and descent into a Never-Trumper are contained in a piece whose author for many years supported and admired this man.

The only post-election bright spot was the emergence of rising political star Bill Kristol, Dan Quayle’s chief of staff.   …

There’s no question Kristol helped Republicans find their voice during the early Clinton years and it contributed to Republicans winning control of Congress in 1994. I subscribed to his new magazine, The Weekly Standard, … I was really happy when he started appearing on the Sunday morning shows because he was feisty and a fierce defender of conservative principles.   …

As the presidential campaign heated up, Kristol’s rants against Trump became more intolerable and his judgement more skewed.   …

Sadly, this brilliant man has become a bit unhinged.

Bill Kristol can be forgiven for detesting Donald Trump and considering him to be unfit for the presidency.  Let’s face it, Mr. Trump’s behavior in the Republican Primaries, particularly to Ted Cruz, was awful.  His tweets and statements are sometimes indeed cruel and vulgar.  However, what cannot be forgiven (in a political as opposed to a theological sense) is Kristol’s transference of that hatred to those many citizens who decided to support Mr. Trump (quote from previous piece, emphasis added).

One day into Trump’s administration, Kristol declared he would not get used to the “unprecedented vulgarization” of the presidency. He’s mocked Sean Spicer, Kellyanne Conway, and Ivanka Trump. He referred to Trump’s immigration executive order as “Breitbart-like boob bait for the bubbas” and compared Trump’s presidency, less than one month old, to President Nixon’s second term. He made some odd comments about the lazy white working-class clipping coupons and how immigrants, not Americans, are really the hard workers.

This bubbling detestation for President Trump and his supporters has recently culminated in the following tweet on February 1, 2020, by Mr. Kristol.

“Not presumably forever; not perhaps for a day after Nov. 3, 2020; not on every issue or in every way until then. But for the time being one has to say: We are all Democrats now”

A compelling response to this admission was provided at Red State.

It’s one thing not to support President Donald Trump. But don’t use him as an excuse to cover being a Democrat.

You can be an independent, you can choose not to vote. But if you are supporting the cause of moving this country further to the left, when we are already in a pitched battle to stop it, then yes, you are indeed just a Democrat. Moreover, you are a Democrat at a time when principled Democrats who see the writing on the wall are fleeing the party because of its leftist move, who know there’s no place there for moderates or classical liberals.

Let’s be clear.  By publicly backing the Democrat Party in the 2020 election this supposedly “conservative” hero is supporting:

  • Abortion on demand up to the moment of delivery and likely infanticide after;
  • A socialist takeover of our health care and energy industry at a minimum;
  • The totalitarian “Green New Deal”;
  • Destruction of the Constitution’s 1st and 2nd Amendments, the Electoral College, the Senate and packing of the Supreme Court;
  • Persecution of Democrat political opponents by the Federal Government’s institutions of taxation, law enforcement and intelligence gathering.

What can we conclude but that Bill Kristol’s commitment to “conservative principles” has been exposed as fraudulent?  Clearly there is something far deeper and more important at stake than “conservative principles” in Mr. Kristol’s mind (we will return to this later).

Mr. Kristol’s presumption that his abandonment of the Republican Party and Conservatism is “Not presumably forever” is pure fantasy.  Given what he has implicitly embraced this is a personal “cross the Rubicon” moment.  My expectation is that he will never be fully accepted or trusted in his new Progressive home and never be respected or welcomed back into the Conservative home he so spitefully has left.

Screen Shot 2020-02-24 at 5.35.42 AMFinally, just three weeks after having abandoned the Republican Party in favor of the Democrats, those new and presumably better Democrat “conservatives” gave a raving Communist, Bernie Sanders, a second clear victory in the Nevada Caucus.  As you would by now expect, Mr. Kristol’s response was all about himself.

Yes, Mr. Kristol, the Republic you claimed to love is within a hair’s breadth of nominating a  life-long Socialist and lover of Communist regimes for President and your primary thought is about your feelings, your reputation.  It is arrogant, ignorant “elites” like you who have undermined the foundations of our Republic.  The Progressives to whom you so virtuously lost (and then joined, hmmm…) know exactly what they want and how to get it.  It is only people of your caliber who are surprised when the truth becomes too obvious for even a highly credentialed elite such as you to overlook.

Considering the “Never Trumpers” (1)


A Thought Experiment

Let’s assume that there exists in the conservative movement individuals who are truly committed to conservative principles (e.g., individual liberty, self-responsibility, limited government, etc.) but who are convinced that President Trump is the enemy of these principles.  These individuals have established positions of influence and have built successful careers within the conservative movement.  What would you expect these people to do and how would you expect them to behave in opposition to President Trump?

Would you expect them to at first in effect and later in practice support the opposing Progressive movement?  Would you expect them to abandon the conservative movement to the claimed evil influence of President Trump?  Would you expect them to become increasingly bitter and petty in their criticisms of the President’s behavior and then of his supporters?

A Real World Case

For most conservatives and/or Republicans none of this would be expected.  There have been deep, even bitter disagreements within conservatism and Republicanism for generations.  Someone my age can easily recall the divisions between Barry Goldwater and Ronald Reagan with the party establishment.  There’s the “neocon” vs. “paleocon” debate and the isolationist vs. internationalist foreign policy camps.

I could go on, but my point is that throughout all of these sometimes nasty debates it never occurred to the participants to pick up their marbles and join the Progressive camp.  But in the case of a Populist President Trump who gives as well as he gets in bareknuckled political warfare this is exactly what has happened.

I think it will be useful to inquire as to why.

Yes,Openly Bloodyminded Progressives

Some of you who manage to read my posts to the end may have noticed a recent reference to approval of death threats to Senator Susan Collins after her Kavanaugh Supreme Court confirmation vote.

Progressives may disagree with Collins’ vote, but their descent into open justification of death threats afterwards shows how thin is the line between farce and wickedness.


The original tweet and even more troubling “explanation” tweet.

You may also recall a series of posts discussing the “bloody-mindedness” of many Progressive elites.

Well, it turns out that a Democrat candidate for the Senate seat currently occupied by Susan Collins, Bre Kidman, has chosen the guillotine as her campaign symbol.  Candidate Kidman was quoted in explanation: “The guillotine is an image which calls to mind what people have done for revolution before” … “If we can find a better path to revolution than that we owe it to ourselves and our country.”  This begs the question of what happens if, in this Democrat’s mind, we can’t find a “better path?”  Her answer to this question is even more troubling than her original tweet (see figure).

It turns out that it isn’t only Democrat Senate candidates who are fondly thinking about the guillotine.  A paid Bernie Sanders campaign worker was caught on video discussing use of this device come the revolution.

Mr. Weissgerber added, “I’m telling you. Guillotine the rich.”

The Sanders campaign has refused to comment on this and another paid worker who envisions American gulags to reeducate Trump voters after a Sanders victory.  The kindest interpretation is that the Sanders campaign isn’t concerned about bloodthirsty rhetoric by its paid workers.

I suppose some could respond that this is just another right winger spreading propaganda.  If so, consider the recent comments by Chris Matthews, an elite Progressive in good standing about Sanders’ ideology.

“I have my own views of the word socialist and I’ll be glad to share them with you in private and they go back to the early 1950s,” he told a post-debate analysis panel.

“I have an attitude about them. I remember the Cold War. I have an attitude toward [Fidel] Castro,” he added. “I believe if Castro and the reds had won the Cold War there would have been executions in Central Park and I might have been one of the ones getting executed. And certain other people would be there cheering.”   …

“I don’t know who Bernie supports over these years, I don’t know what he means by socialism. One week it’s Denmark. We’re gonna be like Denmark,” Matthews continued, mocking Sanders’ deep Brooklyn accent. “Well, what does he think of Castro? That’s a great question. What did you think of Fidelissmo?”

It should deeply trouble Progressive Democrats that this bloody-minded rhetoric pervades their movement, including a candidate for the Senate.  But it doesn’t appear to in the slightest.  At some point we non-elite commoners are entitled to draw conclusions about the moral standing of our elite “betters.”

Screen Shot 2019-12-18 at 7.37.37 AM

Christianity’s Contemporary Headwinds (2)


Twitter personality Titania McGrath (left) is really Andrew Doyle (right).

There is another person, Andrew Doyle, who has earned my high regard.  However, whereas Dr. McClay’s work is in the scholarly domain, Mr. Doyle’s is in bareknuckled satire through his ingenious Twitter creation, Titania McGrath.  That said, Mr. Doyle is a serious man who has obtained a deep and well rounded education.

Mr. Doyle is a man with whom I could enjoy long discussion on points of agreement and disagreement.  He is utterly committed to the concept of free speech, which makes him an ally on one of the most important issues of our time.  Therefore, the following criticisms are not intended to undermine his overall position, but rather to illuminate the  power of Christianity’s headwinds.

The source for this discussion is a long interview with the American Mind.  There is obviously much more of interest in this interview than I will here discuss.  My entry point is where Mr. Doyle (A.D.) is asked by the interviewer  (S.K.) about the “religious” nature of woke ideology.

S.K. That’s something I’d like to ask you more about: this mode of gaining power. On the one hand you suggested that there might be a strategy behind it, but you’ve also compared it to a kind of religion, as we have done also here at The American Mind. Which would suggest a more unconscious impulse, less than an explicit strategy.

A.D. Yes, that’s the theme of Tom Holland’s last book, Dominion. Holland makes that point that in the absence of Christianity, there’s something instinctive about finding these belief systems. And it does have the same hallmarks: it has the aspect of original sin, the Augustinian concept of original sin which now comes in through whiteness, or being heterosexual—having these immutable characteristics that make you a sinner. And then you’ve got the heresy concept, the idea that anyone who doesn’t think the right things is a heretic who needs to be cancelled, and then you get the metaphor of cancel culture, which is a lot like witch hunting, and burning people at the stake as the Inquisition might have done.

And of course so much of the theorizing behind woke ideas is based on entirely unsubstantiated, faith-based positions. They believe in unconscious bias, and institutional power structures—things that you can’t quantify or put your finger on that just sort of exist in the ether like spirits. And to ask them to prove any of these positions is to simply get the response that well, they do exist because we know they do. Which is what a religious zealot would say.

So I think that certainly the best way to understand the social justice movement is to see it as a cult. Because then it all makes sense, and it also makes sense why they’re able to behave so barbarically toward those who don’t subscribe to their belief system. Because the hallmark of many religions is tolerance to a degree. And then where things start going wrong, where witches start getting burned at the stake and heretics start getting executed is where that tolerance runs out. And I think that’s what happened here: the social justice movement is a fundamentally intolerant movement. And fundamentally illiberal. There’s nothing liberal about it.

To accept this discussion as an accurate commentary on the Christian religion one would have to assume that Christianity as practiced in the 17th century has continued unchanged into the 21st century!  I must ask Mr. Doyle when was the most recent “witch hunting” activity conducted under the auspices of a Western Christian denomination?  When was the most recent trial of a heretic?  If Mr. Doyle wishes to claim that 21st century woke ideology shares some of the worst aspects of 17th century Christianity then we may be able to find common ground.  But this is not his contention, which is odd for a man of such clear intellectual power and educational achievement.

Mr. Doyle then proceeds to explain the “totalizing system” that is capable of defeating wokeness in the absence of Christianity.

S.K. … do you think there is some other, more healthy totalizing system through which we can view the world? Something that can defeat and take the place of wokeness?

A.D. Yes, I’d call it liberalism. And I mean that in the classical sense of the word. The best way to build a humane society is from the liberal position: everyone is free to say and do whatever they want to do, to identify however they want to identify, to live their lives as they want, so long as it does not encroach on the freedoms of others. And that strikes me as the most sensible solution to anything.

So if you take the trans debate, the liberal position is that anyone has the right to do to their bodies whatever they want, to call themselves whatever they want, but they have no right to demand that others would use the language that they would like them to use. It has to be about individual freedom, and that strikes me as the best way to run a society.

Firstly, I’d argue that a better term for Mr. Doyle’s position is “libertarian.”  Be that as it may, one might erroneously conclude that “classical liberalism” arrived ex nihilo into Western Civilization.  In point of fact “classical liberalism” arose uniquely in a Western Civilization dominated by Christianity.  I am not here claiming that “classical liberalism” is a Christian ideology.  However, I am claiming that “classical liberalism” depended on the existence of  Western Christianity for its birth and persistence.  Only the fact that Christianity has receded in Western Civilization allows us to erroneously assume otherwise.

My point is this: Even a man of impeccable intelligence and learning such as Mr. Doyle is able, knowingly or not, to assume that “classical liberalism” exists independently from Western Christianity.  This assumption undermines the rightful place that Christianity holds as the means by which a humane theory for civilizational organization originated and grew.  By this error our “classical liberal” friends neglect their natural allies in the existential battle with totalitarian evil.

Christianity’s Contemporary Headwinds (1)


In the previous post I briefly discussed the cultural forces against which contemporary Western Christianity struggles.  Generally, what comes to mind are those people and institutions that aggressively attack Christianity out of ideological and/or personal hatred.  From my perspective the most effective opposition to Christianity has originated not from the pagan/atheistic/multicultural outside, but rather from the institutional Christian inside.  This concern has led to innumerable blog posts and ultimately to an eBook.

There is another identifiable group who, while not overtly opposing and sometimes clearly admiring Christianity, yet create headwinds against which it must struggle.  I have not previously commented on this group, the one minor exception being the profound meditation by Wilfred M. McClay on “The Strange Persistence of Guilt.”  Anyone familiar with my blogging and books knows that I have the highest regard for Professor McClay’s essay, as I consider it to be one of the most insightful and important of recent years.  However, even within this great admiration I yet voiced a brief but significant criticism of his perspective.

What Dr. McClay may not understand, and many of our denominational leaders certainly do not understand, is that Christianity’s power for advancing the social good is a consequence of actual, real belief. And, without that real belief as a first thing, Christianity can’t be anything more than a derivative, inefficient and unreliable vehicle for social change.
It is only through real belief in Christianity’s foundational truths made available to flesh and blood people that there is any hope for humane social change.

I was here responding to this section near the end of Dr. McClay’s essay (emphasis added).

What is to be done? One conclusion seems unavoidable. Those who have viewed the obliteration of religion, and particularly of Judeo-Christian metaphysics, as the modern age’s signal act of human liberation need to reconsider their dogmatic assurance on that point. Indeed, the persistent problem of guilt may open up an entirely different basis for reconsidering the enduring claims of religion. Perhaps human progress cannot be sustained without religion, or something like it, and specifically without something very like the moral economy of sin and absolution that has hitherto been secured by the religious traditions of the West.

Clearly Dr. McClay is here viewing Christianity from the perspective of its utilitarian impact on Western Civilization.  That is, rather than embracing Christianity itself he speaks about its positive impact on Western Civilization’s development.  Christianity isn’t a power for good because it’s the Truth about God and His purposes for humanity.  Rather we need Christianity “or something like it” to adequately deal with humanity’s “persistent problem of guilt.”

Dr. McClay is no enemy of Christianity.  For all I know he may be a Christian himself.  My point is that, by treating Christianity as something less than what it ultimately is he undermines the very foundation upon which he hopes to rebuild Western Civilization.  Thus, even in this most powerful meditation on the issues of sin and guilt whose persistence has driven our culture nearly mad, Dr. McClay adds to the headwinds against which Christianity must struggle.  This is part and parcel of the civilizational tragedy that continues to unfold before our tearful eyes.

“When the foundations are being destroyed, what can the righteous do?” (2)


Title: Psalm 11:3 (NIV)

Even were Western Christianity strong it would find itself struggling against the overwhelming tide of secular opposition.  Our mass culture is saturated with messages critical of organized religion in general and Christianity in particular.  Our educational institutions are dominated by a shallow scientism that pushes all questions to the materialist domain.  Our concepts of morality are increasingly sourced from a kaleidoscope of contemporary ideologies created by aggressive political activists.  And perhaps most significantly, anyone claiming Christian belief is held to the ultimate standards of that faith, thus exposing them to the apparently credible charge of hypocrisy.

So, I do credit Nietzsche for his prophetic insight that God had died as a foundational concept for Western Civilization’s morality.  I also give credit for his fearful premonitions of what would happen when the full effects of this moral void were felt.  One can only shudder when surveying the terrors visited upon Europe in the 20th century.

The nature of those terrors were predicted by another genius of the late 19th century, Fyodor Dostoevsky in his novel The Brothers Karamazov (1880).

“If God does not exist, everything is permitted.”

This idea was put into practice in the 20th century’s total war, genocides and totalitarian terror states.  It continues to animate the 21st century Progressive project of Intersectionality, abortion and Marxism.

However, this entire edifice of nihilism is built on the unproven assumption that God is a human creation.  The alternative is that God is real and exists utterly independently from human belief.  More particularly, that this objectively real God has chosen to reveal His nature and purposes through the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments, that is, the Christian Bible.

This alternative likely seems nonsense to many in the younger cohort of Americans (i.e., Gen. X, Millennial and Gen. Z).  After all, they have been raised in the Progressive dominated mass media, education and political era.  Thus their exposure to the idea of God outside of a church is saturated with contempt for a figment of the ignorant or hateful human imagination.  For many who were raised in a church the prevailing attitude had little power to oppose godlessness and too often reinforced it.

The question thus arises: Is there a Book of the Bible that can testify afresh to generations permeated by ideologies of the Progressive era?  Many candidates come to mind, with one of the four Gospels seeming a natural answer.  Although I would never discourage anyone from reading these direct commentaries on the life and purposes of our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ, I also wonder if they only indirectly address the specific intellectual barriers to faith.  Anything from the Old Testament seems right out given the impediments raised by time and culture.  It must be said that God’s Holy Spirit cannot be denied any means by which to bring broken sinners to faith.

Were I to choose one Book by which to challenge the prevailing contemporary ideologies of disbelief it must be the Romans Epistle.  No other Book so explicitly and methodically excavates the layers of human need for the Gospel down to the very foundation.  No other book is written to an audience as cosmopolitan and multicultural as were the citizens of Rome.  And no other Book addressed a congregation more oppressed by the ideologies of power and prestige as those living in the seat of power for the great Roman Empire.

So, if Western Christianity is going to reestablish its credibility as a source of God’s Good News then a great place to start is in the Romans Epistle.


“When the foundations are being destroyed, what can the righteous do?” (1)


Title: Psalm 11:3 (NIV)

We live in a contemporary world where Christian faith for many has become not difficult, but rather incomprehensible.  When in 1882 Friedrich Nietzsche had the perception to notice and the courage to say that “God is dead,” he was commenting on a civilizational process that, while then hidden, was already well established. 

“God is dead! God remains dead! And we have killed him! How can we console ourselves, the murderers of all murderers! The holiest and the mightiest thing the world has ever possessed has bled to death under our knives: who will wipe this blood from us? With what water could we clean ourselves? What festivals of atonement, what holy games will we have to invent for ourselves? Is the magnitude of this deed not too great for us? Do we not ourselves have to become gods merely to appear worthy of it?”  [The Gay Science, Section 125]

The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy provides necessary assistance in interpreting this assertion (references have been removed).

… his doubts about the viability of Christian underpinnings for moral and cultural life are not offered in a sunny spirit of anticipated liberation, nor does he present a sober but basically confident call to develop a secular understanding of morality; instead, he launches the famous, aggressive and paradoxical pronouncement that “God is dead.” The idea is not so much that atheism is true— … he depicts this pronouncement arriving as fresh news to a group of atheists—but instead that because “the belief in the Christian God has become unbelievable”, everything that was “built upon this faith, propped up by it, grown into it”, including “the whole of our European morality”, is destined for “collapse.” Christianity no longer commands society-wide cultural allegiance as a framework grounding ethical commitments, and thus, a common basis for collective life that was supposed to have been immutable and invulnerable has turned out to be not only less stable than we assumed, but incomprehensibly mortal—and in fact, already lost.

We tend to focus on the contention of God’s loss as a foundation for Western Civilization’s morality.  But when we read his prophetic words again there is something even more subversive at play.  Nietzsche is here claiming that, to the extent that God ever lived, it was entirely due to our belief.  That is, we have the power to kill God because He is our creation.

If we wish to understand why contemporary Western Christianity is so irrelevant then this is one key.  We see this assumption at work in the Mainline denominations where “Christianity” is used as just another means by which to advance a secular and godless political ideology.  In the Catholic Church, what but a disbelief in God’s existence can explain the powerful and persistent clique of pederasty in its clergy? There is virtually no “fear of God” left in the Western Church, be it in the leadership or many in the pews.  For how can we “fear” something that we have created and that thus has lost its power to demand our allegiance?


The Impeachment: Tragedy to Farce in Record Time (2)


It’s actually much worse than this.  The Democrats simultaneously make both points in their public communications.


As I said in the previous post, my use of the word “farce” to describe the Democrat impeachment mania is not intended to lessen their moral failure, but rather to highlight their pathetic incompetence.

… their intent is pure evil, but their means are so exposed as stupid that it becomes farcical.

Thus, while there was massive tragedy associated with the Brett Kavanaugh debacle, the naked partisanship of the Democrat politicians and their mainstream media (MSM) enablers led them to behave in ludicrous ways.  There was literally no accusation too ridiculous, no yearbook detail too petty that it wasn’t picked up like a Sword of Damocles only to become a wet noodle in their hands.

The Impeachment Farce

When the Democrats, Deep State and MSM decided that President Trump’s phone call with the newly elected president of Ukraine, Volodymyr Zelensky, would serve as an excellent pretext for (finally!) impeachment, tragedy moved decisively into farce.  This transition occurred when President Trump unexpectedly released the phone call transcript.  The entire impeachment edifice rested on the foundational assumption that the transcript, due to foreign policy and executive privilege issues, would never see the light of day.  Therefore the only source of information about this “crime” would be the secondhand Deep State “whistleblower” complaint and the thirdhand Democrat/MSM accusations.

So when President Trump released the call transcript he blew the wheels out from under the impeachment bandwagon.  But the Democrats were so completely committed and their presumption of MSM protection from public scrutiny was so absolute that they plowed forward anyway.

One noteworthy early incident after the transcript’s release was Chairman Adam Schiff’s attempt to read a completely bogus version into the public record. Chairman Schiff sat down in the House Intelligence Committee’s leadership chair and made up out of thin air a rendition of the President’s conversation.  The made up “transcript” quoted by Chairman Schiff “confirmed” all of the “whistleblower’s” claims.

From this pathetic opening lie the Democrats careened from one idiotic position to another as they attempted to pin an impeachable crime on the President.  We heard endlessly about quid pro quo, until the Democrats’ polling showed public confusion.  From there it was off to bribery and treason, but neither of these actual crimes made it into the final Articles of Impeachment.

What we ended up with was one article so broad and vague (i.e., abuse of power) that every President could have been impeached under it (particularly Barack Obama) and another that was so absurd (i.e., obstruction of Congress, which President Obama repeatedly did without Democrat congressional complaint) that only a Democrat politician could say it with a straight face.  These articles were so pathetic that the House Prosecutors felt obliged to throw every accusation of evil they had ever imagined in their hate-addled brains against the President, some being:

  • Reassertion of the Russian collusion hoax even though the Mueller report had said there was none;
  • Mind reading, where the prosecutors claimed to know what thoughts were in the President’s mind;
  • Wild imagined descriptions of future crimes by the President (e.g., sell Alaska back to the Russians in return for their help to subvert the 2020 election);
  • Claims that the President must prove his innocence rather than they prove his guilt in explicit contradiction of the United States’ legal foundation;
  • Claims that for the duly elected President of the United States to not use “talking points” generated by a bunch of unelected, vain Deep State bureaucrats amounted to treason;
  • Et cetera…

When the whole clown car started careening into the political ditch there was the New York Times with last minute “bombshell” reports based on illegal leaks from the intelligence community’s vetters of the Bolton book manuscript.  However, by this time the coordination between the MSM, Deep State and the Democrat Party had become so transparent that even most elected Republican politicians were able to see it.

And so, on Wednesday, February 5, 2020 every Republican Senator (except Mitt Romney on one article) voted to acquit.

deep-stateIt’s difficult to fathom, let alone describe the hate addled stupidity of what the Democrat Party, Deep State and MSM have done.  They have not convicted or even discredited the President.  His poll numbers stand now at their highest level ever.  What they have accomplished is to unmistakably demonstrate in public their incompetence, dishonesty, mental deficiency and power lust.  I understand that these are not necessarily all negatives in the Progressive movement.  But to a large number of Americans they are appalling.

Clearly the Democrats believe that there exists an electoral majority that supports their program.  If there is then our nation’s life as a republic founded on individual human dignity and liberty is over.  My prayer is that, to the contrary, there exists a persistent majority who will reject these vile Progressive proto-totalitarians.