Defeating Progressivism (5)

Math is hard

Moral truth is so much easier than math truth!

The Burning Question

We “commoners” operate under the distinct disadvantage of not spending every waking hour planning the destruction of our political “enemies.”  As discussed in a previous post we just have so many priorities and interests other than the achievement of raw power over others.

We are currently a nation splintered into contending groups who appear to have lost the ability to communicate, let alone cooperate, with each other.  These groups can often (there are numerous exceptions) be be roughly divided into two primary camps.

The first is populated by people who tend to define themselves by associations and interests outside the realm of politics.  To them, though politics may be an important part of life, other domains like faith, family, neighbors, sports, etc. have clear priority.  Although there is no agreed name for this group, I’ll refer to them as the “commoners.”  This is justified not by any presumption of lower ability or value, but rather by the fact that they see themselves as part of a common heritage and culture.  Thus, they have appreciation for the nation and those through whom it was formed and maintained.  If there is a central organizing principle for this camp it is opposition to the idea that the nation must be “fundamentally transformed” in order for it to be valued.

So the question burning in my mind has been:

How can we “commoners” be motivated to set aside all of our sensible other interests for long enough to repulse the proto-totalitarian Progressive project?

A Possible Answer

In this time when family gatherings, church attendance, sports and all other normal human interests have been removed, I simply ask you to focus on these elite Progressive betters revealing their actual mental prowess.

Example #1

Screen Shot 2020-03-17 at 7.06.18 AM

I’ve previously posted on this incident.  This massive math error got past all of MSNBC’s reporters, editors and fact checkers to get onto the air.

Example #2

Screen Shot 2020-03-17 at 6.34.10 AM

The Federalist documented this amazing gaffe by Democrat Presidential Candidate Joe Biden.  To provide context, approximately 400.000 Americans died in World War II, which is 1/375’th of 150 million. In 2017 there were approximately 2.8 million deaths from all causes in the United States.  If we assume that number of annual deaths over the 13 years between 2007 and 2020 the result is 36.4 million total deaths from all causes, or less than one-quarter of 150 million.

Example #3

Screen Shot 2020-03-17 at 6.39.30 AM

Democrat Presidential Candidate Bernie Sanders’ campaign manager claims that 170 million more Americans than there are Americans go bankrupt every year (!) due to medical debt.  Also, how can only 68 million Americans be “under insured” for health care when 500 million Americans go bankrupt every year due to health care bills?

Example #4


This one takes the cake.  I’ve previously commented on Congressperson Ocasio-Cortez’s economic “plans.”   What makes this example the perfect capstone is that it can be legitimately interpreted as (1) “You only question my plan’s math because I’m a WOMAN (you sexist PIG).” or (2)  “Because I’m a WOMAN you can’t expect my math to add up correctly.”  


So, here’s my motivational statement to we “commoners” in this time of political peril.

Do we want history to record that we were defeated by “elites” who demonstrated this level of mental acuity?

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

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.

The Impeachment: Tragedy to Farce in Record Time (1)


Opening Remarks

It’s quite fitting that the most appropriate quote describing the Democrat’s impeachment mania comes from the bloodthirsty, moronic ideological genius at whose feet they worship.  This builder of fabulist solutions to humanity’s fallen state has inspired movements whose deceitful, wicked, bloodstained actions have raised tragedy to levels unimaginable prior to his life’s work.  Yes, at an operational level they are Leninthinkers, but at an ideological level they, knowingly or not, are frenzied worshipers at the modern Baal idol called Socialism.

One of the primary themes of this blog has been documentation of, and commentary on the tragic descent of Progressivism into a frenzied, destructive mob. But the effectiveness of this mob has been so diminished by their obvious mental breakdown that the dominance of tragedy has been replaced by farce.

Beginning the Transformation

If I had to identify when this insanity transformed from tragic to farce, it would be during the Brett Kavanaugh hearings. Recall that just when this honorable, decent, talented man was about to win Senate approval for the Supreme Court the Democrats pushed forward a troubled woman who’s claims of teenage abuse were not just shockingly vague, but also unsupported by any family or friends. This eventually led to bizarre absurdities such as questioning on the word “boof” from Kavanaugh’s high school yearbook.

Whitehouse did not answer. He then moved on to another possibly sinister phrase, a line in Kavanaugh’s yearbook page that said, “Have you boofed yet?” “Judge, have you — I don’t know if it’s ‘boufed’ or ‘boofed’ — how do you pronounce that?”

“That refers to flatulence,” Kavanaugh said. “We were 16.”

From there we eventually descended into insane fantastic claims by Julie Swetnick that Kavanaugh engaged “in abusive and physically aggressive behavior toward girls,” where Kavanaugh and others would get girls intoxicated so they could be “gang raped” at house parties by a “train” of boys. It beggars the imagination that this occurred even once, let alone repeatedly where the victim girls kept showing up.

In this appalling incident anyone with eyes unblinded by Progressive ideology could see how the mainstream media worked hand-in-glove with the Democrat party to dredge up and then publicize any charge of sexual misconduct no matter how uncorroborated or obviously ridiculous. In the end this obscenity became too much for Republican Senator Susan Collins who was generally supportive of the Me Too movement. Here’s her explanation of the intersection between Me Too and her Kavanaugh vote.

MACCALLUM: What are your thoughts on the Me Too movement?

COLLINS: The Me Too movement has been very important for our country. It’s needed and has helped to heighten awareness and I hope that there’s anything good that has come out of this terrible process, it is that the survivors of sexual assault will feel more empowered to come forward and they’ll come forward at the time of the incident and that they will be heard.

Not everyone is going to be giving an accurate story. But everyone deserves to be treated with respect.

MACCALLUM: It could potentially cost you your election in 2020. Are you at peace with that?

COLLINS: I am. The easier vote, politically, clearly would have been for me to vote no. But that would not have been the right vote. And I have to live with myself and I want to be able to look in the mirror in the morning and know that I did what I felt was right, no matter what the consequences may be.

My job as the United States Senator is to apply my best judgment and that’s what I did in this case despite tremendous pressure, horrible tactics, abuse of my family, my staff, and myself. But I — I really won’t ever be intimidated. I have to do what I think is right and I’ll let the chips fall where they may.

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. Thus I use the word “farce”; not to denote something humorous, but rather something wicked that is also transparently manufactured by hate-filled ideological activists. That is, their intent is pure evil, but their means are so exposed as stupid that it becomes farcical.

Defeating Progressivism (4)


The Three Pillars (3)


If, by various and sundry means, your clique has achieved almost undisputed power and prestige, the temptation arises to lean on those accomplishments.  This temptation is magnified considerably if the foundation for these accomplishments is hubris.  In this event the clique members begin to demand acquiescence from the public not because they have demonstrated superior ideas or performance.  Rather, they put on the pretense that their ideas or performance must be accepted because they have acquired power and prestige.

pretenceUnfortunately, once again over time, the public will realize that “the emperor has no clothes.”  That is, the only argument being made by the elite is that they have acquired power and prestige and so therefore must be obeyed.  This realization opens the elite to well deserved contempt.  For rather than demonstrating the truth of their superiority they show themselves to be lazy, incompetent and selfish.

The constant utilization of pretense tempts our Progressive elite to use whatever argument appears to advance their project regardless of how defective or dishonest.  Thus it becomes child’s play to defeat this corrupt clique.  All you need is the courage to demand the issue be decided on the merits and the cloak of pretense is penetrated, revealing nothingness or deception behind it.

Pretense is only potent while the victims believe that there is actual power and prestige behind it.  Once this belief dissolves its power collapses.


Defeating Progressivism (2)


The Three Pillars (1)

The three pillars of Progressivism are built on the foundation of hubris.  For over sixty years these pillars have supported the advancement of Progressives into international,  national and local leadership and then sustained their position once achieved.



This pillar is central because without it the other two pillars would immediately crumble and fall.  Progressives don’t view power as the exercise of a temporary responsibility.  Rather they worship power as their only acknowledged reality.

For example, within the theory of postmodernism the demise of any ultimate Truth and the meaningless of language leads to the conclusion that the only thing separating one position from another is the power wielded by those in contention.

… postmodernists hold “that truth is ‘socially constructed,’ so not only is there is no capital-T Truth that stands outside the individual or society, but all meaning is up for grabs in a contest to see which ‘stories’ will define our civilization. Ultimately this means truth becomes a political question about who wields power rather than an investigation into anything eternal or external to our own perspectives.”

That is, power is the only legitimate arbitrator of truth.  Thus, since Progressives view themselves as the carriers of ultimate “truth,” they are morally compelled to seek the power by which that “truth” can become supreme.

The practical embodiment of this power is what Progressive politicians, media and educators call “the narrative.” “The narrative” is that temporary constraining lens through which any information must pass prior to public distribution.  For example, the “Republicans are racist” narrative transforms events in which race plays a role into morality plays where “Republicans” are always the oppressors.

“The narrative” also serves to separate those stories that are presented to the public from those that are hidden.  That is, any true story that doesn’t “support the narrative” must be suppressed regardless of its relevance or importance.

It is by exercise of this power that Progressives have so successfully shaped and led public opinion.  However, the public, over time, has noticed the growing discrepancy between “the narrative” and what they experience.  They have also noticed how “the narrative” can flip 180 degrees overnight if necessary to advance or maintain Progressive power.  Therefore, this once solid pillar is showing unmistakable signs of decay.

Defeating Progressivism (1)


Before addressing specific areas in which we must defeat Progressivism a few general comments are in order.

The Foundation

Contemporary Progressivism is built on a foundation of appalling hubris.  What other conclusion could possibly be drawn for a movement that asserts a unique, definitive claim to moral and intellectual authority?  And this claim is not theoretical, but is rather enforced by intimidation and even overt violence.  The recent series of posts on “Repressive Tolerance” sheds additional light on a mindset that justifies the abrogation of any opinion that exists outside of the Progressive “party line” for any given day (since the party line can change by 180 degrees overnight if necessary to advance their power).

This foundation guarantees that Progressivism is a house “built on sand.”  For the Bible is absolutely clear that there are no humans who are unsullied by Original Sin.  The Apostle Paul sums this all up in his Epistle to the Romans (3:9-12, NIV).

What shall we conclude then? Do we have any advantage? Not at all! For we have already made the charge that Jews and Gentiles alike are all under the power of sin.  As it is written:

“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.”

Perhaps you don’t consider the Apostle Paul to be a credible source on the issue of hubris (!?).  If not then how about Jesus Christ from the Gospel of Luke (18:9-14)

To some who were confident of their own righteousness and looked down on everyone else, Jesus told this parable: “Two men went up to the temple to pray,one a Pharisee and the other a tax collector. The Pharisee stood by himself and prayed: ‘God, I thank you that I am not like other people—robbers, evildoers, adulterers—or even like this tax collector. I fast twice a week and give a tenth of all I get.’

“But the tax collector stood at a distance. He would not even look up to heaven, but beat his breast and said, ‘God, have mercy on me, a sinner.’

“I tell you that this man, rather than the other, went home justified before God. For all those who exalt themselves will be humbled, and those who humble themselves will be exalted.”

I challenge you to find the difference between the Progressive elites who imagine themselves to be living at the pinnacle of human virtue and this Pharisee.

The fact that there are so many Christians who shamelessly partake of this Progressive hubris is a great embarrassment.  The fact that there are Christian denominations whose leadership bows at this idol is an appalling scandal to the faith.

The fact that the ruling elite class live in this state of pathetic hubris without the slightest understanding of its destructive power exposes our churches, schools and civic institutions as failed, hollow and impotent forces for civilizational survival.  We are currently living in the devastation wrought by this dereliction of duty.


Defeating “Repressive Tolerance” (2)


Christian Arguments

I led this discussion with “secular arguments” because we now live in a post-Christian culture.  This does not mean that Christianity is irrelevant.  It does mean that we can no longer imagine that our audience will understand, let alone be convinced by Christian derived arguments.

Yet Christianity must still be the basis of our thinking about truth and morality if it is ever to regain a prominent place in our nation’s civic discussion.  We must learn by constant practice how to leverage Christian truth into arguments that demand attention by the general public.  What we know for certain is that the stylishly arid, transparently partisan and theologically vacuous pronouncements of Mainline Christianity must be relegated to the dust heap of history.

I see two primary lines of Christian argumentation in opposition to “Repressive Tolerance,” those being:

  1. Claiming to occupy a position of unique, unassailable moral / intellectual superiority is an act of sinful pride;
  2. Christ specifically condemned as sinful those in his time who sought public status and power rather than the actual good of others by their actions.

Note that neither of these arguments establishes a partisan Christian political position.  Rather they provide a spiritual / moral framework within which people of differing opinion can engage in good faith debate.

The Sin of Pride

The foundation of the Progressive Left’s “Repressive Tolerance” is the presumption that they and they alone have the right to decide what is good and evil.  And, this right includes the option to flip good to evil and vice versa at their whim.  It is only by this presumption that it’s possible to claim reasonableness for the position of not “tolerating” what they define to be “intolerance.”

This position should cause a Bible trusting Christian great concern.  For in the preeminent biblical discussion about the sin of pride it is precisely this human temptation that is introduced.

Now the serpent was more crafty than any of the wild animals the Lord God had made. He said to the woman, “Did God really say, ‘You must not eat from any tree in the garden’?”

2The woman said to the serpent, “We may eat fruit from the trees in the garden,3but God did say, ‘You must not eat fruit from the tree that is in the middle of the garden, and you must not touch it, or you will die.’”

4“You will not certainly die,” the serpent said to the woman. 5“For God knows that when you eat from it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.”

6When the woman saw that the fruit of the tree was good for food and pleasing to the eye, and also desirable for gaining wisdom, she took some and ate it. She also gave some to her husband, who was with her, and he ate it. 7Then the eyes of both of them were opened, and they realized they were naked; so they sewed fig leaves together and made coverings for themselves.

Genesis 3:1-7 (NIV)

And yet, not only do godless Progressives claim this position, but so do supposedly God fearing Christians.  Can there be any doubt that the Progressive Left’s adherence to “Repressive Tolerance” is built on the original sin of humankind?  No, from a Christian perspective there simply isn’t unless you are a Bible denying “Christian.”

The Sin of Status and Power

The Progressive Left enforces its dictums through their acquired positions of status and power.  And the use of this power is not bound by any “ethics” as understood by a Christian or classic liberal:

since history is not made by ethics, ethics are of no importance. In other words, might makes right. The ends justify the means.

Thus the Progressive Left has sought and achieved power for its own sake.  Since the purpose of power is to enforce their arbitrary, capricious decisions about what is good and evil, their pursuit of power and status falls exactly under this condemnation by Jesus Christ.

38As he taught, Jesus said, Watch out for the teachers of the law. They like to walk around in flowing robes and be greeted with respect in the marketplaces,39and have the most important seats in the synagogues and the places of honor at banquets. 40They devour widows’ houses and for a show make lengthy prayers. These men will be punished most severely.

Mark 12:38-40 (NIV)

Yes, these “social justice warriors,” these “virtue signalers,” these mobs of vicious destruction are driven by a pretense of virtue that covers a wicked corruption of terrible sin.  These people only pretend to care about the poor and oppressed.  What they actually care about is the power and status that can be fraudulently obtained through this deception.  They are perfectly happy to have the poor and oppressed stay in that state in perpetuity, as an unchanging justification for their power.

It’s a terrible thing to see godless Progressives carrying out this viscousness over the decades.  It’s a scandalous, vile thing to see our supposed Christian leaders prostrating themselves before this wicked idol in return for the power and status it promises.

We must expose and reject all of this if Christianity is to ever recover its moral credibility.

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.