Rotherham Update


Way back in February 2017 I discussed the Rotherham Child Sex Scandal.  Here’s an update.

Investigations have been ongoing since then, and one just-completed inquiry has made headlines in Great Britain. This is from the London Times: “Rotherham police chief: we ignored sex abuse of children.”

A senior police officer admitted that his force ignored the sexual abuse of girls by Pakistani grooming gangs for decades because it was afraid of increasing “racial tensions”, a watchdog has ruled.

If Progressive Multiculturalism is so moral, then why has it led to the most long-lived example of open pedophilia in the Western (enlightened!) world?

Defeating “Repressive Tolerance” (1)


Secular Arguments

The Progressive Left understands human psychology and cynically leverages it to win the argument.  Perhaps the most fundamental human desires are to think well of yourself and for others to think well of you.  The “Repressive Tolerance” position brilliantly leverages these desires.

By dominating our centers of social, educational and religious thought the Progressive Left is enabled to argue that opponents are bad people who should be shunned and persecuted by the rest of society.  Note that this argument has virtually nothing to do with the merits of the issue at hand.  However it has proved to be incredibly effective not in spite of but rather because of this characteristic.  This is because it gives the Progressive complete flexibility to make any argument (or tomorrow its opposite) that advances their program.  And, it places their opponents in the impossible position of proving a negative (i.e., I’m not a bad person!) rather than the actual point under debate.

So, the key to defeating “Repressive Tolerance” is denying its adherents this deceitful but advantageousobfuscation position.  Doing so will sometimes be painful and costly, but the cost of not doing so is the loss of our and our children’s liberty.

The first step is to utterly reject their claims of moral and/or intellectual superiority — in person, in writing, in general.  This is not the same thing as claiming that you actually own this position.  No, it is a nonnegotiable demand that your Progressive opponent prove their case on the merits.

It’s possible that having debated the merits they may be in the right on that issue.  Thus victory here isn’t about winning the argument but rather forcing the Progressive to engage on the merits.  What you will find in many cases is that, having become intellectual lazy and morally corrupted by their “high ground” tactic, their argument collapses without this fraudulent prop.

The second step is to have made the effort to understand the issue beforehand, including the arguments for both (or more) positions.  If you do this and realize that the Progressive position is best then you need not debate at all.  However, due to the fact that the Progressive position is driven by the desire for control of others, or by the desire to destroy boundaries that have well served humanity, their position will usually be found wanting.  Also keep in mind that Progressive positions on the issues are ever changing and often contradictory.  These characteristics can be easily leveraged against the Progressive position if only we have the courage to do so.

MargaretThatcher-PersonalAttacksFinally, if your opponent refuses to argue on the merits and insists on assaulting your character, reject them.  Make is absolutely clear that you don’t have the slightest interest in the opinion of a person who has only character assassination to offer.  This step could be painful, particularly if the opponent is a family member or friend.  On the other hand, we do no favors to people for whom we care by enabling their worst behavior.

There will also be occasions where the intransigent person has some sort of power over you.  While I’m not proposing that you choose to be harmed, you should work to change the power situation such that you are no longer threatened.  This could mean changing jobs or out-competing that person so that they no longer have the power.  Of course if it is a spouse, parent or sibling (among other family relations) then other considerations may dominate.  Another essential protection is for the people around you who agree to speak up in support.  Power is massively multiplied when the victim seems isolated.  It is massively diminished when others stand with the victim.

Regardless of the unavoidable complications and compromises, our general position must be to reject Progressive’s claims to the moral / intellectual high ground.  I have had many experiences where this tactic not only carried the day, but ended up exposing just how vacuous and even wicked are the positions of my opponent.  Thus to the extent that we grow a spine and do our homework, Progressives will increasingly find themselves experiencing the very feelings that they have attempted to create in us.  This will either drive them to become more responsible in their conduct or to be more transparently vain and cruel.

Hmmm, I wonder where we’ve seen this in practice?

Understanding “Repressive Tolerance”


Although this may seem like nonsense to the uninitiated, it is a key foundational theory by which Progressives justify their bigotry and violence.

One of the great advantages of Progressive ideology is the existence of a theoretical basis.    Note that this is not to say that the theory is true or just.  However the esteem given to these theories by highly credentialed academics and powerful political players provides a sense of confidence to Progressive adherents.

For Progressives with a formal social justice education these theories are likely explicitly known.  For other Progressives actual knowledge is less certain.  Regardless, the fact that these theories have enabled effective practical results confirms their value.

In the vast majority of cases we Commoners are utterly ignorant of these theories.  Thus we often find ourselves perplexed by a Progressive opponent’s sense of superiority even as they advance arguments that seem absurd.  Consequently we are often at a significant disadvantage due to the resulting confusion.

One of the most effective of these theories is called “Repressive Tolerance.”  The primary author of this theory was a man named Herbert Marcuse, whose life and philosophy have been summarized as follows.

An immigrant from Germany who taught at a number of American universities, Marcuse was a member of the Marxist-influenced Frankfurt School, which wanted to deconstruct Western liberal capitalism. Though he opposed Fascism and contributed to the war effort during World War II, Marcuse believed that the industrialized capitalist democracies of the mid-20th century were themselves fundamentally repressive. He became one of the leading gurus of the New Left, the angry and at times violent Sixties radicals who were in many ways the progenitors of the current “progressive” power elite. Prominent New Leftists associated with Marcuse included the radical academic Angela Davis, and Michael Lerner, a former SDS member whose “politics of meaning” became a Hillary Clinton catchphrase during the Nineties. Marcuse’s students (and students of his students) can be found throughout American higher education today.

The following extended excerpt from the article titled “Repressive Tolerance” (written in 2016 by by P. Andrew Sandlin) provides the essential description of Marcuse’s theoretical response.

Marcuse’s solution is to create an entirely different kind of society. … he is after a different kind of tolerance than we have known in classically liberal societies. But how do you get there from here? For Marcuse, people looking for the just society, led by the elite like him, must reeducate an entire culture. But the presupposition for this reeducation is the repression of, and intolerance towards, all of those elements that would guarantee classical liberalism. Consider this long quote:

Surely, no government can be expected to foster its own subversion, but in a democracy such a right is vested in the people (i.e. in the majority of the people). This means that the ways should not be blocked on which a subversive majority could develop, and if they are blocked by organized repression and indoctrination, their reopening may require apparently undemocratic means. They would include the withdrawal of toleration of speech and assembly from groups and movements which promote aggressive policies, armament, chauvinism, discrimination on the grounds of race and religion, or which oppose the extension of public services, social security, medical care, etc. Moreover, the restoration of freedom of thought may necessitate new and rigid restrictions on teachings and practices in the educational institutions which, by their very methods and concepts, serve to enclose the mind within the established universe of discourse and behavior ….

Earlier he wrote:

[T]olerance cannot be indiscriminate and equal with respect to the contents of expression, neither in word nor in deed; it cannot protect false words and wrong deeds which demonstrate that they contradict and counteract the possibilities of liberation. Such indiscriminate tolerance is justified in harmless debates, in conversation, in academic discussion; it is indispensable in the scientific enterprise, in private [!] religion. But society cannot be indiscriminate where the pacification of existence, where freedom and happiness themselves are at stake: here, certain things cannot be said, certain ideas cannot be expressed, certain policies cannot be proposed, certain behavior cannot be permitted without making tolerance an instrument for the continuation of servitude.

Marcuse is saying that, by their very nature, democracies allow their own subversion by a subversive majority, who are opposing the inherent oppression of society. If there are impediments to the subversion, the way to get rid of them is to undemocratically silence them. The people he has in mind, of course, are the people who oppose the subversive program: classical liberals, Christians, modern conservatives, and so forth. This means that the subversives should loudly demand their right to free speech while denying free speech to people who oppose them. Sound familiar?

Yes, it sounds ominously familiar.  In fact it is an almost exact description of the contemporary mindset by which Progressives are advancing their radical goals.  Even worse, the above article finishes as follows.

And, if necessary, education and indoctrination must be supplemented by revolutionary violence. Marcuse is quite clear about this. He refuses to posit a moral equivalence between the violence perpetrated by classical liberals and the violence committed by subversives. The former is evil; the latter is justified. In fact, he argues that since history is not made by ethics, ethics are of no importance. In other words, might makes right. The ends justify the means. He writes that oppressed minorities — and this means people who lack wealth or prestige or acceptance — have the right to extralegal violence if they exhaust all legal means. No one has a right to judge them immoral or unethical. (Think: Black Lives Matter and the call to kill cops.) Marcuse offered a program for annihilating Christian culture and classical liberalism and replacing it with Libertarian Marxism. He had takers.

Those takers became college professors and journalists and foundation presidents and “community organizers” and artists and musicians. They have wielded massive influence on the West from 1960-2016. Their vision is the commanding social vision of our time, working out its implications right before our eyes.

To create Christian culture, Christians must vanquish that vision.

How can Christians (and other classical liberals*) vanquish this hellish vision?  It is to that topic that I will turn next.

*Classical liberalism is defined by Mr. Sandlin as:

… the political philosophy that developed gradually in England from the Magna Carta and was transported to England’s colonies, the largest of which became the United States. … Classical liberalism is marked by religious liberty, individual liberty, economic liberty, separation of powers, checks and balances, constitutions, and the rule of law. … it created societies in which families and churches are free to live within the boundaries of the rule of law. Classical liberalism means maximum, law-based liberty for citizens.

iBooks Publish Announcement: The Progressive Riot

I have published my fifth eBook on iBooks.  If you have an iOS device then you can use this link to access.  If you do not use an iOS device, a PDF version can be found on my blog using this link.

Screen Shot 2020-01-06 at 8.20.19 PM


In November 2008 citizens of the United States elected perhaps the most radical Progressive politician in its history to the Presidency. The opposing citizens and outgoing Republican administration accepted this verdict without rancor or defiance. In November 2016 citizens of the United States elected perhaps the most Populist non-politician in its history to the Presidency. The opposing citizens and outgoing Democrat administration erupted in what can only be described as a riot of resistance that has continued unabated to this day.

This book seeks to expose the breadth and depth of this Progressive riot that has been tearing asunder this nation’s founding principles, governing institutions and civil society. It also seeks to identify and illuminate the various ideological sources by which Progressives justify this riot. By so doing perhaps the illusions that allowed such a situation to develop can be dispelled, thus enabling a more effective opposition.


On Tuesday, November 4, 2008 the citizens of the United States elected Barack Obama, the Democrat candidate, to the office of President. Many of the almost sixty-million who voted for John McCain, the Republican candidate, considered Mr. Obama to be the most radical Progressive politician ever elected to the presidency.

For example, it was indisputable that Mr. and Mrs. Obama had been for decades members of Chicago’s Trinity United Church of Christ whose senior pastor was the Rev. Jeremiah A. Wright Jr. Pastor Wright was a public supporter of Louis Farrakhan who is a virulent anti-Semite and hater of the United States. After the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks the Rev. Wright gave a fiery sermon in which he gleefully yelled that “America’s chickens are coming home to roost!” In another sermon the Rev. Wright said “God damn America, that’s in the Bible for killing innocent people.” Mr. Obama considered Pastor Wright to be his spiritual advisor and the good pastor officiated at Mr. and Mrs. Obama’s wedding. Before Senator Obama disassociated himself from the Rev. Wright he said “I can no more disown him [Jeremiah Wright] than I can disown the black community.”

Many also knew that Barack Obama’s first run for the Illinois State Senate was launched at the house of Bill Ayers and his wife, Bernadine Dohrn. The 1995 event was a fundraiser and kickoff for the campaign. These two individuals are utterly unrepentant about their previous lives as leaders of a domestic Marxist terrorist organization in the late 1960s and early 1970s, that being the Weather Underground. When provided the opportunity to apologize for the murder and mayhem of his terrorist group in 2001 Ayers responded by saying “I don’t regret setting bombs. I feel we didn’t do enough.”

In 2007 Senator Obama was designated to be the “most liberal Senator” by the National Journal. In 2008 Louis Farrakhan endorsed Senator Obama, leading Senator Hillary Clinton to criticize the implied ideological commonality. During the 2008 campaign Senator Obama chose to denigrate tens of millions of American citizens when he made his “bitter clinger” comments. Five days before election day candidate Obama said in a public speech that his purpose was to “fundamentally transform” the United States.

My purpose is not to relitigate the 2008 presidential election. Rather I’m pointing out that those who opposed an Obama presidency had very good reason to fear the consequences of his victory. And yet there was no coordination among the George W. Bush Justice Department, Intelligence Agencies and State Department to investigate the Obama campaign as possibly infested by traitors. There was no fraudulent “dossier,” funded and created by the McCain campaign using foreign (primarily Russian) sources to undermine Senator Obama’s candidacy or to destroy his presidency after his win. And after Mr. Obama won the election there was no outpouring of demands for “resistance” by outgoing Bush high ranking officials.

There were no Republican calls to impeach Mr. Obama from the moment he was declared the election winner. There were no attempts to persuade Electors to vote for Mr. McCain even though a majority in their state had voted for Mr. Obama. There were no claims that Mr. Obama’s victory was illegitimate due to foreign (primarily Russian) interference and even vote count changing in the election. Celebrities didn’t speak about blowing up the White House, ask how long it’s been since an actor assassinated a president or pose with a mock decapitated Obama head. Elected Republican officials didn’t call for Obama administration officials to be hounded out of the public square.

No, the people in opposition to Mr. Obama accepted that the nation had legitimately elected the most radically Progressive man in its history to the Presidency. They weren’t happy about this development, but had no intention of being a disloyal (to the nation’s will and its Constitution) opposition.

And yet, when in 2016 the nation chose to elect Mr. Trump to the presidency all hell broke loose. All the things that hadn’t happened to Mr. Obama did happen (and then some) to Mr. Trump.

As a result the nation hasn’t been this divided since the 1960s Vietnam War era. A credible case can be made that our contemporary division is worse since in the 1960s it was a foreign policy issue over which we were divided as opposed to now when the very legitimacy of our democratic institutions are under attack.

What this nation has been experiencing since election day 2016 is nothing less than a wild Progressive riot in our streets, our government agencies, our mass media, our educational institutions, our states, and our federal legislatures and courts. The riot’s purpose is to overturn the 2016 election results, thus disenfranchising the over sixty-million citizens who elected Mr. Trump to the presidency.

This situation represents a radical break in our nation’s culture and institutions. This book seeks to explain how we arrived here and where we could be going. By so doing perhaps the illusions that allowed such a situation to develop can be dispelled, thus enabling a more effective opposition.

Table of Contents


1 of 3



2 of 3



3 of 3

Turning the Tide (3)


You may be wondering why the previous post discussed events that occurred over two centuries ago.  What I’m attempting to illuminate is the permanence of an ideological struggle that is now reaching a decision point in the United States.  This decision isn’t about a single Presidential or Congressional election.  Nor is it ultimately about specific people running for office.

It is about the recognition by a sustainable majority of Americans that their liberty as conceived at our nation’s founding is under explicit assault by the Progressive Left and the Democrat Party.  It is also about the myopic ignorance and cowardice of the establishment wing of the Republican Party.  They have proven themselves to be worthless allies in the fight to maintain our liberty.  It’s actually worse than that.  They have provided political and moral cover to the Progressive Left by pretending to oppose them at election time only to “reach across the aisle” by surrendering their supposed principles once in office.

Thus regardless of if President Trump is reelected or the Republicans control houses in Congress, regardless of how many Governorships or state legislatures Republicans hold, the Progressive Left and its fellow travelers will continue the fight to destroy the United States as founded.  Our purpose must be to defeat this proto-totalitarian assault regardless of how long it takes or how high the cost.

The Republican Party can only become a reliable, effective vehicle for our fight if we demand that this be so.  Yes, the variability of region and culture will enable some politicians to be more unequivocal than others in this fight.  However, if they wish to maintain our support they must demonstrate that, within the practical bounds of their particular constituency, they are in the fight on the side of liberty as conceived by classical liberalism.

We also as individuals and organizations must find the courage of our convictions.  We must lift our heads and boldly challenge the Progressive Left’s ideology and program.  We must end their dominance in our institutions of education, media, religion and government agencies.  We must organize to defend individuals and groups who find themselves besieged by the Progressive mobs who seek to win by intimidation and destruction.  We must take the time to understand the ideas of our nation’s founding and to communicate these ideas to our children, friends, communities and opponents.  And, we must never succumb to the temptation to use the vile tactics of the Progressive Left.  Our victory will be tragically pyrrhic if we become those whom we claim to oppose.

This struggle’s timeframe must be measured in generations.  For so embedded has the Progressive Left become in our nation’s institutions that it will take generations of unremitting work to turn the tide.  Thus the struggle will exceed my lifetime and that of many others.  But in God’s providential purposes we are called to seek justice and do mercy even when the goal remains hidden in the unforeseeable and inexplicable.  Protecting our nation from the catastrophe of Paganism and Socialism is a goal worthy of our lives as a free and proud people.  By so doing we will also ensure that the United States remains a beacon of hope and a source of support to those throughout the world who live under tyranny.

39These were all commended for their faith, yet none of them received what had been promised, 40since God had planned something better for us so that only together with us would they be made perfect.

Therefore, since we are surrounded by such a great cloud of witnesses, let us throw off everything that hinders and the sin that so easily entangles. And let us run with perseverance the race marked out for us, 2fixing our eyes on Jesus, the pioneer and perfecter of faith. For the joy set before him he endured the cross, scorning its shame, and sat down at the right hand of the throne of God.3Consider him who endured such opposition from sinners, so that you will not grow weary and lose heart.

Hebrews 11:39 – 12:3 (NIV)

Turning the Tide (2)

Read my Lips

The lie in 1988 that destroyed the Conservative movement’s credibility for twenty-eight years.

If we are going to make progress we first must be honest about the situation and our responsibility for its existence.

The situation is that, despite our occasional winning of elections, the Progressive program has been inexorably advancing for over a century.  Yes, Ronald Reagan won two landslide elections in 1980 and 1984.  However, when he left office in January 1989 his Republican successor, George H. W. Bush, reasserted the primacy of our governing Progressive elite and crushed credibility of the Conservative movement.  What followed was twenty-eight years of Progressive advance (at varying scope and speed) under both Democrat and Republican administrations.

Thus, we should have no illusions about the permanence of the current opposition to Progressivism under the Trump administration.  Even if President Trump wins reelection his policies could be nothing other than a transitory pause on the way to a proto-totalitarian regime.  Make no mistake.  The establishment wing of the Republican Party will move heaven and earth to reestablish the status quo that existed prior to the Trump insurgency (just as did George H. W. Bush after President Reagan).  Thus, after Trump, be the next President Republican or Democrat, we could find ourselves back on the Road to Serfdom.

This all brings us back to the issue of our (i.e., opposers of Progressivism) responsibility.  We have been living under the illusion that the United States’ founding principles and institutions are so stable that they will endure with minimal attention by the populace.  Our Republic has weathered civil war, economic depression, world and cold wars, civil unrest, major reforms and cultural revolutions while maintaining a recognizable connection to our founding.  We therefore imagine that there is an inherent permanence undergirding this experiment in liberty.  We couldn’t be more wrong.

The brutal truth is that within two months of the U.S. Constitution becoming effective (March 4, 1789) its opposing ideology of genocidal utopian totalitarianism emerged in the French Revolution (May 5, 1789).  While the founding mottos of the United States (“Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness”) and the French Revolution (“Liberty, Equality, Fraternity”) seemed to share a superficial similarity the actual results were shockingly different.  For whereas the United States experienced relative peace and prosperity France experienced a proto-genocidal reign of terror.


The Reign of Terror, or The Terror (French: la Terreur), refers to a period during the French Revolution after the First French Republic was established in which multiple massacres and public executions occurred in response to revolutionary fervor, anti-clerical sentiment, and frivolous accusations of treason by Maximilien Robespierre and his Committee of Public Safety.

While both mottos include “liberty,” the Americans combine this concept with “life” and “pursuit of happiness” (all endowed by our Creator) the French include “equality” and “fraternity” (to be delivered by the secular state).  Thus while the American conception of “liberty” is focused on individual God-given lives who can pursue but are not guaranteed happiness, the French conception of “liberty” is centered on an atheistic collectivist vision of equality of outcome and values.

Lest you think that the French Revolution is too far removed from our contemporary situation to be relevant, consider this excerpt from a very recent article on the decline of Christianity in the United States.

In his farewell address in September 1796, George Washington offered a warning to his fellow countrymen:

“And let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.”

Washington was not simply playing to the masses by tossing them this morsel of religious rhetoric. He was referring to a dangerous European experiment named the French Revolution, which sought the destruction of the Church and the institutionalization of atheism. The experiment was a failure. What followed was regicide, civil war, and the Reign of Terror. Deciding that belief in something beyond oneself might, after all, be a good idea, the clever social engineers of France’s Committee of Public Safety (a misnomer if ever there was one) responded with a half-measure, creating the ridiculous “Cult of Supreme Being” in 1794. It, too, was a failure. Washington recognized the pitiless nature of a godless society.

The naïveté of our modern social engineers is no less profound. On the one hand, they want to kick out the Christian underpinnings of Western civilization; on the other, they think they can maintain all that Christianity has given us: science, art, law, literature.

The following excerpt discussing the differences between an individualistic (i.e., classical liberal) and collectivist (i.e., Marxist) understanding of liberty well highlights the direct connection between what started at the French Revolution and has evolved to Marxism.

Most significantly, it created societies in which families and churches are free to live within the boundaries of the rule of law. Classical liberalism means maximum, law-based liberty for citizens.

For Marxists like Marcuse, that’s the problem. When you have that kind of liberty, some people and groups flourish and some do not. Some are rich, others poor, and most somewhere in between. Churches and families can reward and punish members. Businesses can establish policies preferring one kind of individual over another. Classically liberal society creates equality under the law. But equality under the law does not lead to equal results. It brings out the latent inequalities in humans. Some are wiser or smarter. Others are lazy and procrastinating. Some are intelligent and some are not. Some are born into wealthy families and some are born into poor families. It is this latent inequality of the human condition permitted by classical liberalism that Marxists simply cannot abide. For classical Marxists, the issue is economic inequality. But for the Libertarian Marxists like Marcuse, it is inequality across the board.

The historic record unmistakably demonstrates that while the classical liberal conception of “liberty” leads to tolerant, productive and flexible societies, the collectivist conception leads to genocidal, impoverished and brittle societies.

This collectivist vision of “liberty” has been actively seeking to destroy the individualistic vision since it emerged in the United States.  It is this collectivist vision that has for the past sixty years grown in power and now dominates the Progressive movement as instantiated in the Democrat Party.  It seeks not coexistence but rather complete dominance.  Unless we set aside our illusions of unity we will never be able to effectively oppose this wicked ideology.

Turning the Tide (1)


Opening Thoughts for 2020 Blogging

Over the past five years one central focus of this blog has been the exposure of our Progressive elites, both religious and secular, as deceitful, corrupt frauds.  I realize that many readers  will find this this characterization to be harsh.  However, having carefully researched their actual words and behavior over this same time span anything less would be intentional dishonesty on my part.

Just for example, I have demonstrated how the elite leadership of the PC(USA) has promoted apostasy and heresy to fundamentally transform that denomination to post-Christianity while pretending to be Bible believing Christians.  I am currently in the process of publishing a new book that demonstrates how our secular Progressive elite leadership class is attempting to fundamentally transform the United States into a tyrannical quasi-caste society while pretending to be protectors of the Constitution.

These Progressive elites will continue to pursue their chosen ends by various and sundry means.  Thus I could indefinitely continue documenting and commenting on their behavior, and surely will to some extent.  However, by now either I have convincingly made my point or have failed.  It therefore is time to turn away from primary commentary on our religious and secular adversaries and to refocus on ourselves.

For if my conclusions about the elites are reasonably correct then the most important issue becomes how we “Commoners” can most effectively and constructively defeat this onslaught.  To pursue anything less is to, in effect, become enablers of this civilizational destruction through cowardice and passivity.

It is to this area that I will seek to provide useful commentary as 2020 begins.  I have no master plan at hand.  All I have is the faith that no matter how alone and weak we may feel; we yet live under the providential protection of the one true God — Father, Son and Holy Spirit — whose purposes are inexplicably both inexorable and intertwined with frail humanity’s will.

I ask then: Did God reject his people? By no means! I am an Israelite myself, a descendant of Abraham, from the tribe of Benjamin. 2God did not reject his people, whom he foreknew. Don’t you know what Scripture says in the passage about Elijah—how he appealed to God against Israel: 3“Lord, they have killed your prophets and torn down your altars; I am the only one left, and they are trying to kill me”? 4And what was God’s answer to him? “I have reserved for myself seven thousand who have not bowed the knee to Baal.” 5So too, at the present time there is a remnant chosen by grace. 6And if by grace, then it cannot be based on works; if it were, grace would no longer be grace.

Romans 11:1-6 (NIV)

The Blog Year in Review: 2019


Views increased by 28% and visitors by 37% over 2018.

I’m thankful to report that readership continued to significantly increase in 2019, as shown by the leading figure.


Although most (i.e., almost 22%) of visits start at the current home page there are also visits targeted on specific posts.  This year two posts dominated, those being “Progressive Christianity’s Strange Bonhoeffer Compulsion (1)” and “A Brief Excursion into PCUSA Heresy.”  What’s interesting is that the Bonhoeffer post was published in 2017 and the Heresy post in 2016.  Thus there still exists a strong interest in these two areas years later.

The next seven posts (excluding “About Mark Birchler,” which is informational) are from 2019, with “Environmentalism Becomes a Death Cult (4)” the most popular.  Note that post numbers 1 and 6 of the environmentalism death cult series are also on the list.  I’m happy that two of my posts attempting satire, “A Tutorial on “Wokeness” for Old White Men” made the list in the top ten.  Two posts from the “Questions for Socialists” series also made the most popular list.

My readership continued to have a solid international flavor as shown in the following results for 2019 (with the top 21 countries listed in order).


Finally, I published two eBooks in 2019, those being:

  1. God’s Acts of Providence
  2. A Denomination’s Debacle.

Thank you to all my readers for your interest and support!