The Progressive Compulsion for Cruelty (2)

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

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

Attacking and Humiliating the Men in their Lives

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Entitlement to Spit in the Face of a Man

Screen Shot 2019-06-29 at 8.32.35 PM

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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



Taking Stock at the 500th Post


General Comments

So here I am writing the 500th post on this blog!  The first post is dated November 25, 2014 and titled “Opening Thoughts.”  My first paragraph is:

This blog will focus on my sense of sojourning through a foreign land as an orthodox, Reformed Christian.  This sense has been a longstanding one with regard to the popular culture here in the United States. I am by no means isolated from this country’s entertainment, political and business cultures.  In fact, I am an active participant in them all.  Though many aspects of these cultures are troubling, I am accustomed to dealing with the challenges and benefits that they provide.

Looking back 499 posts later I’m reasonably comfortable with my adherence to this framework.  That being the responses of an orthodox Reformed Christian to a wide variety of issues within the United States.

I am shocked by the speed that this “foreign land” has expanded over these mere four and a half years.  At the start my sense of alienation was clear but not central. Now I find myself fundamentally alienated from my Christian denomination, the culture and the political environment.  Therefore this blog has transformed from one  centered on exploration to one focused on identifying and exposing the myriad of insane ideas that are driving our civilization towards destruction.

Thus what began as an exploration focused on the PCUSA has expanded into areas such as environmentalism, philosophy, economic systems, politics, heresy, literature, abortion and anti-Semitism, among many others.  I have published three eBooks, all focused on topical issues addressed through Biblical exposition and meditation.  Most recently I have added satire as a means of communicating my concerns.

I have identified the prime driver of civilizational destruction to be Progressive ideology as practiced by both secular and religious institutions.  Therefore I have focused strongly on a critique of this ideology’s foundations, strategies and results.  Some of the major themes of this critique are:

I’ve also attempted to understand and then explain the philosophical underpinnings of the Progressive project (e.g., postmodernism, nihilism, Marxism, multiculturalism, intersectionality, pacifism, Gnosticism, identity, etc.).  My goal is to enhance our ability to counter their positions and to unmask the shocking evil that hides beneath that wafer-thin veneer of moral and intellectual posturing (many people who parrot the Progressive ideology have no idea what they are actually supporting).

Although I have expanded my scope far beyond the PCUSA, I still maintain a regular focus on this my denomination. The only way that I can maintain my Christian conscience is by a posture of opposition and rejection.  Yes, there remain many faithful pastors, elders, deacons and members in the denomination.  However, the theology and behavior of the dominant Progressive leadership has been so outrageously apostate and dishonorable that to remain silent is tantamount to support.  My voice is small, yet I will not choose silence.  So, as long as I’m in this denomination I will speak out as necessary.

I’m currently working on a new eBook provisionally titled A Denomination’s Debacle.  The book pulls together much of the PCUSA information and associated commentary from this blog with the addition of new material to fill-out the story.  It’s currently over 300 pages long, which is almost twice the length of my previous longest eBook.  It troubles me that through exclusive use of publicly available information such a substantial case for the PCUSA elite’s apostasy and corruption can be made.

the-truth-about-truth-a-nietzsche-feature-darwin-festival-version-3-638The “God is Dead” Christian Elite

Throughout this blog’s existence I have occasionally paused to discuss why our elite Christian leadership believes and behaves as it does.  Along these lines I have explored postmodern Christianity, the Social Gospel, Gnosticism and raw power politics, among others.  However, identification of a single unifying principle for this phenomena has to this point eluded me.

Perhaps the foundational principle is that these “Christian” elites agree with Nietzsche that belief in “God” as a reality upon which Western Civilization can base its religious/moral world view, “is dead.”  Let’s think through the consequences of this hypothesis.

Let’s say that you are a pastor or elder who has personally lost faith in the Christian God (or any god for that matter). And, you find that there are many others in the church who hold similar views.  So, you all find yourselves in an organization (i.e., the church) whose fundamental reason for existing has, in your opinion, vanished.  Yet the church has many remaining members and wields moral power in the civilization.  What then to do?

Well, you could work to dissolve the church by openly arguing that it has become obsolete and useless.  However, given that tens of millions still (foolishly in your opinion) believe in God’s existence you would likely fail and be expelled.  Therefore you would have to create a new organization to advance your philosophy.  That’s a very heavy lift with a small likelihood of success.  Far better to remain in the church but work for its transformation into an institution that does “social good.”

Of course, if “God is dead” and the Bible is thus null and void, how to find the social good to pursue?  The answer was found in the most aggressive, organized and presumptive human ideology supposedly pursuing the “social good,” that being what we now call Progressivism (which has its roots in Marxism, as contemporary Progressives are finally admitting).  Thus the elite Christian leadership of Mainline Denominations turned their churches from the Gospel of Jesus Christ to “the gospel of social change and justice” as defined by the secular Progressive political project.

chasmFor decades this stealth-coup was hidden behind multiple complex theological smoke screens that orthodox Christians had great difficulty penetrating.  However, with the advent of gay ordination and marriage the chasm between orthodoxy and heterodoxy became so vast that no amount of smoke could obscure it.  Thus we have seen the parting of ways where so many orthodox members and churches have exited.

Yet some orthodox members and churches have so far decided to remain.  If they do so with the clear understanding that they are missionaries to a now pagan, post-Christian denomination then perhaps they can successfully maintain their orthodox Christian identity.

However, if they pretend that they remain part of a “Christian” denomination then they will almost certainly be eventually converted and then absorbed.  This will occur because they grant legitimacy to the denomination’s dominant post-Christian ideology and thus will increasingly fall prey to its influence.  If that be their end then they have no excuse, for they have been warned and their consciences will testify against them at the time of accounting.

The Problem of Righteousness (7)


The perfect-righteous link arms in a perfect-mob to wreak vengeance on this evil nation that dared to reject their perfection!

A Nation Gone Mad with Righteousness

Close your eyes and imagine a nation in which huge segments of the media, political, educational and religious (among others) establishment decided that they must be more righteousness than the common folk.  Over time this goal becomes a compulsion to be the most righteous.  Finally, they embrace what can only be called a new cult that demands perfect righteousness as defined by an ever changing standard.  Hard to imagine?  Not really.  Simply open your eyes and look around at the chaos and wreckage at work in our contemporary society.

What we are witnessing is a collective nervous breakdown by a group that viewed themselves as the perfect-righteous; confronting the cataclysmic reality that over sixty-million citizens disagreed enough to elect their polar opposite to the Presidency.  In fact, enough citizens in states that had for decades voted reliably for the “righteous” politicians turned traitor to righteousness and voted for an “unrighteous bigot.”  This outcome has launched the elite perfect-righteous into a state of mind-shattering cognitive dissonance from which escape will be at the very least painful and difficult.


The disintegration of the perfect-righteous elite individual personality.

What has emerged is a group of people who occupy powerful positions in our nation whose personalities have disintegrated and been reconstituted as seemingly undifferentiated components of a massive social justice mob.  They will believe anything, say anything and do anything, in collectivist unison, to destroy the source of this atrocity committed against their sense of perfect-righteousness.

The alternative is too horrible to contemplate, that being they are not perfectly, most or even more righteous than their fellow countrymen.  The thought of descending from their perches of perfect righteousness to join the rest of us is anathema.

After all, didn’t everyone they know (or at least who count) agree that their Progressive ideology should from 2008 until the next century at least win every Presidential election?    Wasn’t it agreed by all that the revenue (IRS), justice (department, including the FBI) and intelligence services (CIA, NSA) should be weaponized to ensure that the American electorate always voted the “righteous” way?  Wasn’t it unanimous in their circles that with the victory of gay marriage all Christian conscience to the slightest contrary should be snuffed out?

They wonder, who but utter moral degenerates would find fault with support of abortion up to delivery and infanticide after?  Only the irredeemably evil, they reason, could oppose the creation of a totalitarian green-state. What kind of morons would question the idea that Conservative speech is illegal violence but Progressive violence is protected free speech?  And surely only the already guilty would oppose transition to a system of justice based on guilty until proven innocent (and Progressives never guilty of anything as long as their hearts are in the right place)?


High ranking, perfect-righteous FBI agent Peter Strzok text message while at a Walmart store.

How could the smelly rabble have failed to recognize their moral, intellectual and spiritual inferiority?  After all, hadn’t the high-priestess of the perfect-righteous put them in their place during the 2016 Presidential campaign?  How dare these deplorable everything-phobes/ists reject that which their betters had deigned to offer them — membership in a second or third-level quasi-caste?

It is impossible to predict just where this belief system and consequent behavior will lead.  But let there be no doubt, the forces that led so many supposedly educated, responsible, powerful people to join the thoughtless, ranting social justice mob have not yet run their course.  A Conservative self-righteous counter-attack will only push us further down the road to perdition.  Our nation will either reform and recover or descend into a Weimar Republic-like state, possibly on its way to something much worse.

This is the consequence of an insane pursuit of self-righteousness.  Without the Church reforming itself and reinserting a Christian understanding of righteousness, sin and redemption into this nation’s moral life we may well be lost for the foreseeable future.

The Problem of Righteousness (5)


The “it” here is self-righteousness, Christian or otherwise.

The Self-Righteousness Compulsion (1)

The destruction and despair to which self-righteousness leads is not limited to the Christian experience.  However, it is particularly tragic that Christianity as practiced in the West has been so completely consumed by this false doctrine.  Could Jesus Christ have been any more direct on this point than in the following parable.


The Pharisee and the tax collector…the self-righteous and the Christ imputed-righteous, respectively.

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.”  Luke 18:9-14 (NIV)

Does this Parable of Christ not embody the “rejection, isolation and condemnation” of this post’s top image?  The Pharisee “stood by himself” in splendid moral isolation; from which position he spewed condemnation on everyone else in general and the tax collector in particular.  The result was rejection by God Himself!  And yet, even Christian denominations theoretically founded on Reformed theology are dominated by self-righteous leaders and laity.  This is to say nothing of the rampant self-righteousness in our secular culture used to seek raw power over others.

Let’s stop kidding ourselves.  Self-righteousness is an unavoidable compulsion caused by our fallen state of sin.  I am guilty of it, you are guilty of it.  We all are guilty of it.  But there is something at work in our contemporary Western culture that has supercharged this compulsion to create a particularly powerful weapon of destruction.

I believe that this self-righteousness supercharger has two primary components, those being:

  1. The osmosis of postmodernism from the universities into our general political, educational, legal, media and cultural institutions;
  2. The power of social media to enable easy creation of “social justice” mobs that can in just a few days destroy the character and livelihood of their targets.

I will discuss these two components in the next post.


The Problem of Righteousness (1)


When the foundations are being destroyed, what can the righteous do?”

Psalm 11:3


One key driver of the contemporary crisis in the United States is the problem of righteousness.  Righteousness is a core driver because, having cast off much that Christianity has taught, we now are consumed with the monumental task of rebuilding this concept from the foundations up.  And, the tools by which this rebuilding project is being conducted are the least capable implements that one  could imagine — those being the mob-inducing, narcissist-encouraging, mind-numbing, spirit-destroying Social Network Platforms.

This thought crystallized across exposure to numerous sources.  Initially I was struck by this paragraph in an article from The Federalist (emphasis added):

When I look at this generation, I see young people fiercely, desperately trying to be good. A righteous fervor is sweeping America, shaming and punishing all who do evil. Yet the standards for “good” and “evil” seem unfamiliar and arbitrary. This is a strong indicator that the post-Christian agnosticism is over, and a new religion—one I’ll call progressivism—is rising from the ashes.

So yes, I can easily agree that our “young people” are “desperately trying” to be righteous.  But the reason that they are starting from scratch is because their elders (i.e., parents, teachers, pastors, coaches, politicians, bosses, etc.) have somehow failed to pass on the Christian-derived civilizational wisdom that should be their inheritance.  I must include myself within this failure as all three of my beloved children are currently not looking to Christianity for the answers to their most fundamental questions.

Screen Shot 2019-04-07 at 2.26.22 PMA second source brought into sharp focus the nature of that Christian-derived civilizational wisdom along with the most influential challenging ideology to it.  The source is Jordan Peterson’s preface to the The Gulag Archipelago by Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn (emphasis added).

And it is exactly the necessity for interminable sacrifice that constitutes the terrible counterpart of the utopian vision. “Heaven is worth any price”—but who pays? Christianity solved that problem by insisting on the sacrifice of the self; insisting that the suffering and malevolence of the world is the responsibility of each individual; insisting that each of us sacrifice what is unworthy and unnecessary and resentful and deadly in our characters (despite the pain of such sacrifice) so that we could stumble properly uphill under our respective and voluntarily-shouldered existential burdens. But it was and is the opinion of the materialist utopians that someone else be sacrificed, so that Heaven itself might be attained; some perpetrator, or victimizer, or oppressor, or member of a privileged group. A cynic might be forgiven, in consequence, for asking: “Is it the City of God that is in fact the aim? Or is the true aim the desire to make a burning sacrificial pyre of everyone and everything, and the hypothesis of the coming brotherhood of man merely the cover story, the camouflage?”

The implication of this dichotomy between our Christian heritage and the newly resurrected materialist utopians is profound.  For, whereas in a Christian society members are encouraged to look into themselves to find the source of evil and suffering; the people seeking a materialist utopia try to divide the world into the evil oppressors and the spotless victims.  But, as Mr. Peterson goes on to explain, there is no way to draw such a line in a just and stable manner.

Thus the doctrine of group identity inevitably ends with everyone identified as a class enemy, an oppressor; with everyone uncleansibly contaminated by bourgeois privilege, unfairly enjoying the benefits bequeathed by the vagaries of history; with everyone prosecuted, without respite, for that corruption and injustice. “No mercy for the oppressor!” And no punishment too severe for the crime of exploitation! Expiation becomes impossible because there is no individual guilt, no individual responsibility, and therefore no manner in which the crime of arbitrary birth can be individually accounted for. And all the misery that can be generated as a consequence of such an accusation is the true reason for the accusation.

Finally, just why is it that the attempt to create a human-made righteousness that excludes God has proved to be not just difficult, but rather a genocidal failure?  Here I found the following statement by David P. Goldman in his review of Chumash Mesoras Harav – Complete Chumash with Commentary Based on the Teachings of Rabbi Joseph B. Soloveitchik (Claremont Review of Books, Vol. XIX, No. 1) to be of great help (emphasis added).

Man has free will, but never knows to what extent his will is free. The penitent cannot know the full extent of his guilt. He cannot escape “the unknown and irrational” because his powers are limited. He is declared not guilty when he accepts that ultimate knowledge and power reside in God. God not only summons man to partnership, he consoles him in his lowliness.

Yes, we cannot ever escape the unknown and irrational nature of our existence by our own human resources.  For we are ultimately a mystery even to ourselves, let alone to others.  We can never fully understand and therefore prove our own righteousness.  We can only go on erasing and drawing lines that attempt to define who is righteous and who is not.  But the lines always eventually fail to accurately and definitively separate the righteous from the unrighteous.

girl-blaming-guyAnd so a war of all against all ensues.  For to be declared unrighteous is to suffer humiliation, social isolation and physical want.  To be found within the bounds of the righteous means automatic moral superiority, social preeminence and wealth.  But those who seem safely inside the bounds of righteousness today can be thrown out into utter darkness tomorrow.  Thus is explained the paranoia and destabilization that we see throughout our society.

What is happening now are the skirmishes that precede the total war that always accompanies a utopian totalitarian project.  We need not go to war.  But to avoid such a conflagration those of us who know better need to take a stand.


The Intersectional Progressives Devour Progressive “White Women” (2)


The “typical white feminist upholding the patriarchy” (!?)  (left) and the unrepentant anti-Semite (right).

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi

I have previously commented on Nancy Pelosi’s vile statements.  However, there is a limit for her when bigotry towards a key Democratic coalition group becomes too visible. Due to the outrageous and sustained anti-Semitic statements of Rep. Ilhan Omar, Nancy Pelosi, in damage control mode, drafted a worthless statement opposing anti-Semitism.

The Democrats’ draft measure condemning anti-Semitism, which the House will vote on this Wednesday, is a useless and transparent attempt to distract from a serious problem of their own creation. The melodramatic decree mentions Alfred Dreyfuss, Leo Frank, Henry Ford, and “anti-Muslim bigotry”—because, hey, even when Jews are being smeared it’s about Islamophobia—but not once does it condemn Rep. Ilhan Omar or the strain of Jew-hatred she is helping normalize on the left. In fact, the resolution, teeming with useless platitudes, is one that even Omar could probably support.


Woman’s March leader Linda Sarsour

But even this toothless wonder sent the equally anti-semitic Woman’s March leader Linda Sarsour into a Facebook fit of rage.

“Nancy is a typical white feminist upholding the patriarchy doing the dirty work of powerful white men. God forbid the men are upset – no worries, Nancy to the rescue to stroke their egos,” she wrote.


Saira Rao was a Democratic candidate for Colorado’s 1st Congressional District

This is truly amazing.  Nancy Pelosi, the two-decade Congressional standard bearer for everything Progressive is being called out by a supposedly fellow Progressive as “a typical white feminist upholding the patriarchy doing the dirty work of powerful white men”!?  Note that this Intersectional Progressive accuses a “white feminist” of “upholding the patriarchy”!

But that’s not all folks, according to the recent Colorado Democrat congressional candidate Saira Rao, Nancy Pelosi is a “white supremacist“!!??  That whiff of a revolution beginning to devour its own is getting stronger.

In the end Nancy Pelosi caved to the potent anti-semitic wing of her party.

Democrats cannot simply denounce the anti-Semitism expressed by Omar without ritual obeisance to the identity politics that drives their party, and Omar’s anti-Semitism has elicited an outpouring of support. … Now Democratic leadership in the House will not stop until they craft a resolution that Omar herself can support.

Tennis Legend Martina Navratilova

The coup de grâce of this trilogy is what happened to woman’s tennis legend Martina Navratilova.  Here is a gay white woman who, by skill, grit and determination dominated the woman’s tennis world for many years and was a vocal supporter of gay rights and woman’s sports for decades, being driven to deliver an abject apology for saying that it’s unfair for biological men to compete as women.


Martina Navratilova apologizes

Tennis legend Martina Navratilova apologized after she was criticized for recently saying in an oped that it would be “cheating” to allow transgender women to compete in women’s sporting events.

Navratilova wrote a column on her website weeks after the LGBTQ organization Athlete Ally announced it was severing ties with her following the comments. The nonprofit said they were also removing Navratilova as their organization’s ambassador and from their advisory board.

So, even after a life of amazing accomplishment and Progressive policy support this gay white woman was threatened with social annihilation for stating an opinion at odds with today’s Progressive talking points.  I truly feel bad that this woman, who has demonstrated such courage throughout her life, was beaten into submission by the vile Intersectional Progressive mob.  Obviously being gay and a woman is no defense against the totalitarians now in charge of Progressivism.


The Intersectional Progressives are clearly turning on Progressive “white women,” but why?  As I have previously discussed the unavoidable fact is that it is the Intersectional Progressives who are virulently racist, sexist and anti-Semitic.  And because of these beliefs they look at human beings not as individuals who happen to be of a given gender and race, but rather as creatures whose attributes are controlled by their race, gender, etc.  Therefore, since a plurality of “white women” support Republicans every “white woman” becomes suspect.  And, any deviation from today’s Intersectional Progressive positions is interpreted as proof positive that they are traitors to the movement.

I very much doubt that Progressive “white women” realized that this was to be their eventual situation.  They heard all the happy talk about inclusiveness and understanding perhaps not realizing that behind the curtain were ugly, evil ideas.

I’m not expecting Progressive “white women” to en masse become Conservatives.  However, I am seriously asking them if an ideology that creates such vile hatred is deserving of their allegiance.  I’m encouraged that so many groups have pulled out of the Women’s March over these issuers.  My hope is that enough Progressive women (and men) can find the courage to stand up against this terrible tide of bigotry.  Perhaps then a more humane Progressivism can emerge.

A New Reformation (2)

New-Reformation-ComponentsSeven Components of a New Reformation (Part 1)

Were a “New Reformation” to occur, what would it seek to reform in Christianity?  Over the past four years I’ve explored in depth what appears to have gone wrong.  I could go on documenting the nature and causes of our crisis, but at some point a critic must turn to solutions.  In any case, I believe that enough has been disclosed, analyzed and discussed to enable a first cut at possible solutions.

In the figure heading this post I have listed the seven components that could guide the directions of a New Reformation.  They are only one man’s opinion.  I have surely left out important components.  Others may be found to be unnecessary or even counterproductive.  However, the point isn’t to get it absolutely right, but rather to get Christians thinking about the reforms necessary to address our current predicament.

I will provide short summaries to get the ball rolling.

1. Unity in Christ alone

The core issue that is driving our societal crisis is identity politics.  We have been shattered into warring factions along the lines of gender, race, religion, sexual orientation, age, geography and culture by a political movement that benefits from the ensuing chaos.  The Church is internally roiled by this same dynamic.

Christianity offers the one alternative that unites believers — identity in Jesus Christ.  In Christ we all meet as sinners in need of His redemption.  In Christ we can be united by humility and thankfulness.  The newly reformed Church must openly and effectively offer this alternative in identity to our broken world.

2. Return to Biblical authority and theological orthodoxy

We have come to the point in the Mainline denominations at which our most highly credentialed theologians tell us that the Bible teaches things that are quite different than what the text actually says.  Nor do they stop at mere interpretive distortion, but boldly proceed on to atheism, heresy and apostasy.  In virtually all cases the motive appears to be the alignment of Biblical teaching with a secular Progressive political policy.

This situation has arisen in part due to an abuse of trust by our academics, clergy and theologians.  However, these abuses have become so common and obvious that we in the laity must accept responsibility for silently accepting what we know is false teaching.

There will never be total agreement on Biblical interpretation or theological doctrine.  However, unless a means can be found to more clearly delineate the boundary between credible and false Biblical interpretation / theology we will never extricate ourselves from the current chaotic, destructive environment.

3. Gospel focused preaching, education and evangelism

If we decide to place our identity within Christ then we must recommit ourselves to following Him.  Therefore, we must at the very least agree on what is at the core of His Gospel.  This by no means should restrict the work of understanding and applying the Gospel to our lives.  However, if we can’t even agree on what Christ’s Gospel is at its core then we will be condemned to unending chaos.

So, when I say “Gospel focused” I don’t mean to limit the scope of “preaching, education and evangelism” to the endless repetition of a rote statement.  I do hope that by agreeing on just what the core of Christ’s Gospel is we can more confidently and faithfully live out our calling as Christians.

Making Sense of Progressive Nonsense (4)

Sept-12-Laura-language-istockWhat are They Thinking?

How would you respond if someone walked up to you at a social event and said “All black people think and vote alike, and all women think and vote alike.“?  There are tens of millions of Americans who would be shocked and appalled by this statement.  But there are also millions who would consider it to be a “matter of fact” utterance, and tens of millions of others who are willing to accept this idea.  And, both of these groups consider the other to be sexist and racist.

Since this blog is focused on explaining what I consider to be Progressive nonsense I’ll leave it to others to argue the opposite point.  But make no mistake, I consider the Progressive ideology on race and gender to be destructive, dangerous nonsense.  But it is nonsense that is tearing our nation apart.

If we are going to make sense of this nonsense the best starting point is the Progressive concept of Identity.  To Progressive elites and those who follow them identity is a wholly self-generated attribute that is so fluid that it can change radically over days or even hours.  Thus identity has been utterly disconnected from anything outside an individual person, for example, God.

Rachel Dolezal

Rachel Dolezal

Extreme examples of this fluid self-identification chaos are easily found.  Recently a male (if you will allow me to presume wildly) physical education teacher was disciplined by his school district for refusing to oversee the disrobing of a female student who identifies as male.  We also have numerous examples of male athletes who identify as female winning championships in female athletics.  On race we have the example of Rachel Dolezal, who though white choses to identify as black (but not as African-American).


Facebook Gender Options

Facebook provides between 50 and 70 “gender options” (depending on who’s counting when and where).  Finally, although outside the domain of race and gender, a man in the Netherlands was suing to have his age reduced by twenty years because he identifies as a younger person.  There simply seems to be no boundary left that cannot be broken by the concept of human identification.

Who-am-IWhile this identity ideology appears to provide virtually unlimited choice, it also creates massive opportunity for confusion.  A recent article points out that many humans are literally collapsing under the responsibility of being the sole architect of their identity.

But it is the flip side of this ideology that frees Progressives to behave in ways that previously would have been generally agreed to be racist and misogynistic.  For, if identity can be selected then it can also be denied.  That is what happens to blacks and women who step outside the Progressive established boundaries for their race and gender.  That is, a black person and/or woman who choses non-Progressive positions is not accepted as  black and/or a woman.


Progressive shock troops.

Therefore, the Progressive mob is freed to treat then not as blacks and/or women but rather as enemies of their race and/or gender who, if deemed necessary, can be destroyed with impunity.  Note that this explains how it is that a lily-white Progressive mob can accuse Candace Owens, a Conservative black woman, of “white supremacy.”


Linda Sarsour: Progressive Hero

This also explains how  Linda Sarsour could tweet

“Brigitte Gabriel = Ayaan Hirsi Ali. She’s asking 4 an a$$ whippin’. I wish I could take their vaginas away- they don’t deserve to be women.”

Note that Sarsour is explicitly applying the above described identity ideology that women who disagree with Progressivism need not be considered to be real women.  Rather, they are enemies of their gender who deserve to be mutilated in the most vile way imaginable.

But it’s actually more fundamental than identity politics.  That is, the intellectual foundation for this position is the racist and sexist premise that “All black people think and vote alike, and all women think and vote alike.” Of course, like most of the Progressive positions this assumption is obfuscated by complex philosophical formulations and impenetrable jargon.  If you seek a more practical explanation ask yourself why it is that Progressives always hear the racist or sexist “dog whistles” supposedly used by Conservatives?  I mean, if they can hear messages that the rest of us can’t in this regard then what does that make them?  Thus this appears to be far more an example of psychological projection than logical reasoning.


A nation dangerously divided, even on the definitions of sexism and racism.

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

I am not here saying that racism and sexism doesn’t exist in Conservatism (and other non-Progressive ideologies).  They most certainly do.  However, I am saying that it is a major problem that the dominant governing ideology (as measured by institutional power) is built on these evils.  That is, racism and sexism are not deviations from, but rather direct consequences of  their ideology.

How do Progressives get away with this?  I’ve previously discussed the use of obfuscation to cloak the truth.  A second primary means is misdirection.  That is, because Progressives scream the loudest about opposition to racism and sexism (and, by the way, Fascism) most people assume that they must be free from these moral failures. The tragic fact t is that, behind this obfuscation and misdirection real racism and sexism has been allowed to grow into a terrible moral cancer within the Progressive movement.  Treatment cannot begin until we admit the truth.



Making Sense of Progressive Nonsense (2)


Have you ever wondered how it can be that those people who stand on the street corner loudly proclaiming their opposition to misogyny and racism can turn around and launch the most vile misogynist and racist attacks?  If so, first understand that you have just engaged in ideological “wrong think.”  But, if you, like me, persist in trying to understand what drives our current crisis, then read on.

Misogynists Against Misogyny!


Sara Palin

Take Sarah Palin.  Here we have a generally popular governor of a state that sends both Democrats and Republicans to Washington D.C.  Yes, she is in disagreement with the Progressive Left and may have been elevated too soon (or mistakenly) to a national ticket.  But how did that justify the vile outpouring of objectification and misogyny to which the Progressive Left subjected her and her daughter?

Consider this summary from a recent academic paper titled Sexualizing Sarah Palin: The Social and Political Contexts of the Sexual Objectification of Female Candidates:

While few opportunities existed prior to Palin to study women running for national, executive office in the U.S., it is safe to say that she has received the most sexually objectifying coverage to date (Heldman et al., 2009). Fourteen percent of Palin’s coverage mentioned her appearance, and it was often intensely misogynistic: “‘looks like every librarian in a Cinemax movie;’ a ‘VPILF’ (‘vice president I’d like to —-’)’” (Heldman et al., 2009, p. 12). Other media comments about Palin include, “‘I initially dismissed her as good-looking, [but] that backfired’; ‘Caribou Barbie…Malibu Barbie… Presidential Barbie’; ‘Winking Wonderwoman of Wasilla’; our ‘National Obsession’; ‘His cheerleader choice’; ‘Hugh Hefner asked Sarah Palin to pose for Playboy, because right now she’s posing as a vice presidential candidate’” (Heldman et al., 2009, p. 17). It is difficult to determine if her amplified objectification is due to her attractiveness, the new era of objectification, or both.

Or how about David Letterman making a “joke” about the statutory rape of Palin’s daughter on national television:

“One awkward moment for Sarah Palin at the Yankee game — during the seventh inning, her daughter was knocked up by Alex Rodriguez.”


Sarah Sanders

You can find more recent sickening examples (many more can be easily found) for Sarah Sanders (see Comedian’s Sarah Sanders ‘roast’ stuns White House Correspondents’ Dinner) and


Ivanka Trump

Ivanka Trump (see Samantha Bee hits Ivanka Trump with a filthy sexist attack — The silence on the left is deafening).  Finally, consider the  Linda Sarsour tweet from 2011:

“Brigitte Gabriel = Ayaan Hirsi Ali. She’s asking 4 an a$$ whippin’. I wish I could take their vaginas away- they don’t deserve to be women.”

Linda Sarsour went on to become a Progressive power player and highly visible leader in the Women’s March.  Apparently public, vile, violent fantasies about mutilating other women was not sufficient to prevent her ascension to the top of the Progressive movement.

Let there be no doubt, this vile behavior was from the Progressive Left.  There was no shame in saying these things, and virtually no criticism from our presumed Progressive moral betters in response.  That is, the very people who would have thrown a conniption fit had a female Progressive politician (or one of their daughters) been subjected to even 1% of this abuse had nothing to say about these incidents.  This selective deployment of moral outrage is nothing less than an implicit endorsement.  And a clear warning to any woman who is non-Progressive or who works for a non-Progressive that she can be subjected to this treatment.

We are bound to ask why, and, how Progressives justify such behavior.

The Christian Church in Revolutionary Times (5)

Rendering-to-GodJesus Christ on Politics (1)

If there is one incident in the Gospels where Jesus speaks on secular politics it is Matthew 22:15-22 (see also Mark 12:13–17 and Luke 20:20–26).

15 Then the Pharisees went out and laid plans to trap him in his words. 16 They sent their disciples to him along with the Herodians. “Teacher,” they said, “we know that you are a man of integrity and that you teach the way of God in accordance with the truth. You aren’t swayed by others, because you pay no attention to who they are. 17 Tell us then, what is your opinion? Is it right to pay the imperial tax to Caesar or not?”

So, the strategy of entrapment was to enmesh Jesus in the intersection of religion and politics by asking about taxation.  This question is intended to place Christ in a “lose-lose” situation.  For, while most people in the Jewish nation hated paying the taxes demanded by their Roman occupiers, the Romans considered public opposition to be treasonous.

18 But Jesus, knowing their evil intent, said, “You hypocrites, why are you trying to trap me? 19 Show me the coin used for paying the tax.” They brought him a denarius, 20 and he asked them, “Whose image is this? And whose inscription?”

21 “Caesar’s,” they replied.

Jesus has already landed a major blow against his enemies at this point.  For, as explained at Ligonier Ministries:

He asks for the coin used to pay the tax, which for pious Jews should be a special copper coin minted with Rome’s approval, not the silver denarius, which is seen as idolatrous because it depicts the caesar’s image and his title divus et pontifex maximus, Latin for “divine and high priest.” Jesus’ enemies are revealed as hypocrites when they produce the denarius (22:18–21). Those who hate idolatrous coinage are carrying unclean money themselves.

Then he said to them, “So give back to Caesar what is Caesar’s, and to God what is God’s.”

One under-appreciated point is that our sinless Savior would never resort to counter-deception to win an argument.  Thus, Christ’s response is both a devastating rebuttal and a wholly true statement.

Note first that Jesus is saying that in some cases the secular and spiritual domains are distinct and separable.  In this particular case, the separation allows mere mortals to submit to the secular government authority without denying their spiritual responsibility to God.

Christ’s response is also a rebuke to politicized Christian leaders.  For they always seek to combine the secular and spiritual realms in order to advance their partisan political goals.  It’s not that such combination is never appropriate, but rather that it is not always appropriate.

22 When they heard this, they were amazed. So they left him and went away.

Christ has not only defeated His enemies, but has also articulated what almost eighteen-hundred years later would be conceived as “the separation of church and state.” This concept was introduced in a January 1, 1802, letter by Thomas Jefferson, addressed to the Danbury Baptist Association in Connecticut, and published in a Massachusetts newspaper (emphasis added).

Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legislative powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should “make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,” thus building a wall of separation between church and State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.

We should give great thanks to God for the freedoms we have here in the United States to believe and worship outside the power of government’s control.