Disclaimer and Statement of Principles
I cannot and will not recant anything, for to go against conscience is neither right nor safe. Here I stand, I can do no other, so help me God. Amen.Luther
Ok, not wholly accurate. Before I die I plan to publish an edition of retractions, the only reason I do not do so now is I do not want a set consisting of several volumes. I have gotten and do get things wrong. Retractions are coming!
I do not recant anything I have come to know as truth – principles, and universals. I have only been wrong in the application of those principles and universals.
I do not apologize…
- for believing that tradition is the received wisdom of the ages, it should be relied upon until new ideas can be wholly proven superior and never replaced based upon emotions, feelings nor idealism.
- nor hide my commitment to Christ and my Reformed, Calvinistic view of Christianity.
- my firmly held view that progressivism is wrong and most of what we see in the public square, academia, and the media is flawed.
I am a traditional conservative or perhaps you might call me a paleoconservative – not a fan of the establishment GOP, Straussians, Gramscians, Fabians, etc., etc. et. al.
“Presbyterianism is no religion for a gentleman.” – King Charles II
I think he meant to say Calvinism or anyone of the Reformed tradition, but yeah, we irritated the guy.
I believe in civil behavior, manners, decorum and I like nice things. However, my Reformed, Calvinist form of Christianity can be the very same thing that irritated Charles so much; radical, reactionary, unapologetic and firmly fixed in tradition and truth -I am #based, not sorry.
If you meet me in real life, there is a gun in my truck, despite my best efforts I probably have some dog hair on me somewhere, if you are a woman I will probably hold the door for you, if you are weird I will probably scowl at you, I don’t go around starting trouble nor do I have any tolerance for anyone that starts trouble with me – I am, therefore, a stereotypical example of what a regular guy ought to be like.
On the web and Twitter, RT, likes, comments are not endorsements. I do not agree with everyone I engage with – obviously. I make it clear in my writing who you might associate with me if I do not mention a person as an influence or compatriot the individual in question likely is not. I keep nothing of that nature secret, not embarrassed by any of my influences.
I have, as of late, decided to reach out and engage with some of the folks on the Alt-Right. Not that I agree with everything they say, I do not. However, If Strauss-Howe were correct, the Zoomer generation will be the ones to change the direction of the world, for better or worse. I and my generation were beneficiaries of knowing men much smarter than ourselves from previous generations. If Xers do not pass along some of that knowledge we received from the older generation to the Zoomers, these young Turks might end up as dangerous as some in the media portray. If there are reasonable voices on the left, of my age, I would hope they would engage with the radical young left to help guide them toward a better understanding of the principles behind emotion. This is my hope with the Alt-right.
The bottom line is, don’t assume because I am willing to get muddy and engage directly with folks that others avoid means I agree with everything they say. I simply think it is dangerous to abandon such fiery passion and energy to its own devices. There is an entire intellectual history of thought related to conservative philosophy that would help guide these young upstarts. I am merely trying to point a few of them toward that.
Somebody of my generation has to be brave enough to get in the mud with these folks while they find their way. I volunteer.
Standing against the tide of popular sentiment and bad ideology screaming “NO”!and…not sorry
Rod Dreher posted a piece reviewing The Age of Entitlement, by Christopher Caldwell. He recommends the book and the dark, foreboding passages he quotes relative to what all this means to the future are things I agree with and write about here. It is a book I plan to soon read.
Dreher argues, “This is why, absent strong political and judicial action to protect individual rights, totalitarian mechanisms — government and private — for demolishing resistance to “civil rights,” as defined by progressives, are inevitable.”
Those words, “absent strong political and judicial action”. Are the words of the entire ‘conservative’ movement in my lifetime. They are hollow, empty and feckless words in my observation. They begin from a flawed premise and stand on a weak foundation. The Republic went wrong long before the 1960s and more laws nor court decisions - short of repealing a very large swath of cases - will fix things.
Joe Biden, as Dreher points out, the most moderate of all the Democratic candidates recently had this to say.
By implication, Biden means to use the full power of the Federal Republic, and the legal positivism it has come to embrace to see this through; your counter-worldview be damned, you be damned if you stand in opposition.
So, what of these strong political and judicial actions that Dreher suggests? What can stand against the growing zeitgeist of absurdity - ideologies, and theories that deny the individual, deny truth, deny reality and in the end, rely only upon emotion and passion? When the very nature of metaphysical reality that was key to the development of Western Civilization, a Permanent Thing, is not only under attack but more alarmingly not even understood by many, how can politics or law change the direction?
More to the point, for there are many that would argue that legislation and the courts can save the culture. There is something more fundamental. How did we come to this? Did it all really begin with poor implementation of good ideas in the 1960s? Is the answer just to get back to the real intention of the Civil Rights laws? Is it just that simple?
“First principles, Clarice. Simplicity. Read Marcus Aurelius. Of each particular thing, ask what is it in itself? What is its nature?”
Perhaps to understand this we need to look beyond just the 1960s
The argument for and against right-reason began again in earnest in the West almost as soon as the Enlightenment began. Following a path from Immanuel Kant all the way down to the German School and eventually Postmodernism of the French School we can trace how good ideas were tainted and bad ideas were born. Even Locke and Jefferson were polluted in portions of their writing and thought by bad ideas deriving from idealism and the German School. (The Rise of Absurdity in Western Philosophical and Political Views)
The Federalist borrowed some from Locke and much from Hobbes and leaned toward a Neoplatonic worldview in their vision of the American Republic. Thus, by the late 1780s, the seeds of the destruction of the Republic were already sewn. Those are polemic and dangerous words, not something spoken carelessly. It is also something simply not taken seriously by many, it confounds the entire American narrative. Those objections, however, do not make it less true.
Of course, Federalism decisively won on the battlefield in the 1860s and the pragmatic reality is what we have in terms of government. Legal positivism paved the way for progressive policies and laws to be implemented. Progressivism built momentum for a sort of community view of society. This, combined with the emergence of Postmodern theory and philosophy created the era we now live in.
The ‘community’, or community of communities to take the Peter Drucker term for what has become identity politics, feels things about justice. These feelings are easily implemented into policy, once the community has political power because we already set the stage for totalitarianism in 1861-1877 and followed it up by separating civil law from real justice through legal positivism.
The system, the one that we might call upon for strong political and judicial action was broken asunder long ago. Taking power, enacting legislation or winning court cases in such a broken system would be flawed from the start - a totalitarianism of its own sort if one accepts that two vastly different worldviews now coexist alongside each other.
Lincoln, to some a conservative hero, set the standard that it is perfectly ok to suspend laws, make war against Americans and subjugate them over differences of opinion. The Federalist Republic in the 1960s raised the stakes. He essentially killed an entire opposing view of original intent and our founding. Our entire legal profession accepts, as fact, legal positivism and notions such as the incorporation doctrine. The die is cast.
The very tools of totalitarianism are built right into the system, they have been growing since the early debates of the 1780s. At the root of it all is flawed ideology stemming from flawed philosophy. Once those that hold to the notion that there is no truth other than what the ‘community’ feels is fair they can implement totalitarianism under the rule of law Americans have allowed to become fact.
There is little left to stand in opposition to this. Major protestant denominations are falling daily for elements of postmodern thought. The megachurch movement, built upon the notion of giving the community what it wants, will quickly turn to support this totalitarianism. That entire movement is built upon communitarianism, once those churches begin to fall, they will take the rest of authentic, organized Christianity with them.
Essentially this, the culture is lost, and the system of government was corrupted and tuned for future totalitarianism a long time ago. All the keys and tools are right there for the taking. There is little that can be done politically to turn the tide and only a few things that might slow it down.
In the narrative of an ongoing and progressively elaborating cultural war, the 2nd Amendment is perhaps one of the last remain bastions of conservatives and traditionalists. It is a term, concept and fact of law fraught with division, misunderstanding, slander, misrepresentation, hyperbole and discord.
There are, perhaps some facts, that are seldom spoken out loud, but are nonetheless true. Most supporters of gun-rights would agree with the following, privately if not publically:
- The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms was the last check and balance written into the Constitution against tyranny.
- The Second Amendment is ultimately the only real power behind any of the other items in the Bill of Rights.
- No government ever created by man is immune from the judgment of the ruled, up to and including armed rebellion.
By historical example, a plain reading of the original founders and an honest application of common-sense, no rational thinking person can deny those three items. We certainly as people do not want and have demonstrated throughout history not to want to resort to such drastic measures. No moral, thinking person believes that revolution or violence over tolerable issues is acceptable. Likewise, no honest person can deny a circumstance where government, any government, could devolve into tyranny to such a degree that rebellion was not acceptable, even if we ourselves would prefer not to participate, we can imagine scenarios where people would be justified in using violence. To deny that statement would be intellectually dishonest. Yet, many ignore these realities and attempt to build a counter-narrative.
The counter-narrative always begins with the one-off, the crazy person with a gun example or statistics of what happens when criminals use guns. It is tragic when a criminal or a crazy person uses a gun to do violence. It is likewise tragic when someone gets hacked to death with a machete in West Africa or stabbed on a London bridge. Crazy people and criminals killing people is a tragedy, but that is not the issue.
When arguments about gun statistics and what crazies and criminals do grow boring the left turns to another narrative. The radicals, so detached from historical reality, would paint gun owners as extremest, waiting for a revolution, hoping to set things right with a gun. Behind every long gun is a white supremacist or a neo-nazi their story goes. All this while virtually ignoring leftist violence.
Let’s look at what Americans that believe in gun ownership and also believe that the right to keep and bear arms is the last defense of tyranny have NOT done.
- Southerners, when occupied by Federal troops did not mount an insurrection.
- Paleoconservative intellectuals in the 1930s, recognizing the New Deal as socialism and eventual tyranny, did not write and speak for the common man to march on Washington with granddaddy’s shotgun.
- When occupied by federalized troops in the 1960s southern Americans did not resort to the gun to maintain their States’ sovereignty.
- Since 1972 many Americans have viewed and still view abortion as murder, yet baptist Churches never formed militias to fight a baby-killing regime.
- In the 1990’s many people believed the Clinton administration took federal policing too far, killing people at Ruby Ridge and Waco, yet there was no armed revolt.
- Nobody formed groups and took up arms when we learned our government was spying on our email and phone calls without warrants.
If the narrative, repeated so often by dishonest mainstream media and radical leftist, that “right-wingers” are waiting on a moment to rise up is true, why has it not happened? The Declaration of Independence from Great Britain named 27 reasons for the declaration, some of them are trivial by comparison some that might be posited today by Americans against the Federal government, yet we do not rebel. Why? If the liberal narrative is to believe this boogaloo should have already have started and been completed by now.
It is simple, anyone that is rational, logical and moral and believes that the Second Amendment is the last resort against tyranny sees it precisely like that, the last resort. In ancient Rome, the Rubicon river served as a physical location by which tyranny might be measured. In the modern US, we do not have a physical river, but people know it has to be something of a serious if figurative place, not something to be bandied about and called upon carelessly. People know revolutions generally end poorly, and violence is costly. Believing a thing is a right and being willing to go to the extreme of exercising that right are miles apart. The patience, restraint, civility, and citizenship demonstrated by ordinary gun-owning Americans speaks volumes against the leftist narrative that guns in the hands of Americans are dangerous.
None of that is to say that crazy and unhinged people have not and will not act on the items above. However, ordinary, normal people do not and have not and it is those people that the left smears with their narrative.
There have been examples of Americans that believed that violence was a last resort and chose to use that last resort as an option
- The Whiskey Rebellion over taxes
- John Brown over his view of abolition
- Southerners in defense of their states
- The Plains Indians after seeing treaties broken
There are also examples of Americans peacefully protesting with weapons to show resolve. in 1967 armed Black Panthers entered the California statehouse during a protest. Obviously, not to shoot people, they made it into the legislative chambers in session. Also, not in violation of the law, open carry was legal. They went in armed to show resolve to their protest that they believed were going unheard. It was a way to state “we are serious”. Can there be a more direct statement of resolve to power? Nobody was shot and nobody charged with a crime.
If all of this is true, why does the current governor of Virginia believe that after months of inflammatory rhetoric it is in the best interest of the social good and societal order to disarm protestors next week at a pro-gun rally? If he does this and he and the state legislature follow it up with draconian gun laws and law enforcement sit by or actively participate in disarming citizens both next Monday and after these laws become fact what does he believe will occur?
Will this become the American Rubicon? America being more divided than any time since 1850 and the nation engulfed in impeachment proceedings do his actions make sense?
I do not suspect most ordinary Americans will react in the way the left seems to fear, and perhaps they already know that. All of their claims to the contrary fail to address historical facts.
However, if this all proceeds the way Northam has set in motion he will certainly embolden some lone wolves and disaffected souls to action, he will radicalize some small number. Unfortunately, there will be blood if he proceeds along the path he has begun. At this point, I cannot even say that I believe he and those of like-mind do not already know that – a lone crazy or two acting out gives them more justification to proceed.
Perhaps it is time to just throw up our hands and surrender. The radicals have won every other stage of the cultural war and transformed America into a proto-socialist, proto-dystopian, areligious shadow of the former Republic. If the Second Amendment was intended to be a final bulwark to save everything else, and all else is essentially gone, it almost makes no sense to fight, figuratively or literally, for the 2nd Amendment.
Between a dysfunctional Washington, everyone beginning in January to receive an endless stream of tax bills in the mail combined with our general discord and dissatisfaction with governemnt, these shenanigans in Virginia bode ill. I suspect the next two months will be much more significant in American history than many now realize.
There are still good people, many, like the sheriff in the video below. The fat lady ain’t singing yet, but those that oppose what America was founded to be have become embolden and are demonstrating they are willing to incite violence and use violence to achieve their goals.
Look! There is Jackson standing like a Stonewall! Let us determine to die here today and we will conquer, Rally behind the Virginians!General Bernard Bee (SC)
Stand like a stone wall Virginians!
I just returned from Washington, DC. This is the first time I have visited the city as a tourist. There is still much to process. On the ride back I pondered current events, the culture and the way ahead and I was left with thoughts similar to Benedict Carter below.
Nothing makes sense, yet it all makes sense. Everything that is so disordered makes perfect sense if you accept that there is a worldview out there, running things, influencing others and attacking things it has not yet dominated, a worldview so different and opposed to all I have come to know and believe that I sometimes fail to see it at the root of things. It is so alien.
For example, driving through Virginia I could not help but wonder what has become of the home of Washington, Jefferson, Henry, and Lee. How could Virginia in one week revive the dead ERA, an amendment that is, on one hand, innocuous and unnecessary and on the other complex and dangerous in its potential interpretation and at the same time contrive an assault on basic property rights and liberty?
Let us leave aside the ERA for now and focus on this entire anti-gun situation that has been building over the last couple of months. I posted back in December that these events were just a peek at the authoritarianism and totalitarianism to come. Governor Northam’s declaration of a State of Emergency yesterday and the banning of guns is yet another step is ratcheting up the stakes.
Some will argue that the arrest of three folks that reportedly had ties to neo-Nazi groups and also reportedly had plans to go to Virginia to perform violence vindicates Northam. I say that is bunk. There is not a “right-wing” extremist group in the US that is not infiltrated in some way by an FBI asset. The FBI knew all along about these three, if the stories are correct, they were never a valid threat. What becomes of that story and those three was not and is not at issue, it is not the point.
Northam has twisted his executive power to ban guns at emergency shelters into banning them from the public square. Open-carry and concealed carry are legal in Virginia. Upping the rhetoric, striking first, and shoving his fist in the face of ordinary Americans that value property rights and liberty will only make the situation worse.
Next Monday thousands of patriotic, liberty-minded Virginians plan to assemble peacefully at the State’s capital to send a message to their government. Under their rights and the law they plan on being armed. This is certainly not the first time liberty-minded Americans have exercised their first amendment rights by shouldering their second amendment tools. For instance in 1967 armed members of the Black Panthers protested inside the California statehouse in Sacramento, not to perform violence, but to demonstrate resolve. If Americans cannot protest peacefully, and demonstrate their seriousness by carrying their arms, this leaves few options if their protests are unheard. For some, it will lead to violence out of frustration and apathy.
Maninstream media and the radical left have already captured the narrative of this event. They have equated it with white nationalism and Charlottesville. They long ago painted the narrative of Charlottesville through one lens, one act, and one perspective, leaving the likes of Antifa innocent in their eyes. So too with the planned event of next Monday.
It only takes one. disenchanted, confused lone wolf to turn this into something it never had to be.
If by violating the law, his powers and all common-sense Northam succeeds in disarming the protestors and then proceeds to ignore their protests it is not inconceivable that some lone actor will act. In that case, it will rest upon Northam, his soul shall bear the cost.
This is all avoidable. If Northam comes to his senses (doubtful), if law enforcement refuses to carry out his orders (they will not refuse), if Antifa stays away and does not incite violence (they will not), if the MSM would simple tell this story as it is as opposed to through a radical prism. This might be resolved.
Virginia right now is a big deal.
Being for liberalism or democracy (the two are distinctly different things!!) is not the default Christian position. Many Protestants, and American Protestants in particular, have a very bad habit of thinking Christianity and democracy go hand in hand. They do not. Christianity, for the vast majority of history, has existed in non-democratic contexts and often thrived. There is nothing wrong with celebrating the achievements of liberal democracies because the achievements are impressive, but the defenders of liberal democracy downplay the weaknesses of this form of government, which we are starting to fully appreciate.( Daniel Strand )
The dialogue intensifies. No longer is the idea that there is perhaps something fundamentally flawed with what has become of classical liberalism just a subject for stuffy academics in tweed. Common-sense informs us that there is a significant disconnect between the metaphysical reality that has been integral to Western Civilization and our current culture. Things simply do not make sense and many people have a difficult time understanding just how we got here. Many are starting to wake up to the fact that arguments over the Constitution, limiting government and culture are destined to fail and that subtle but certain authoritarianism is a distinct possibility.
My book, Retrenchment, is an additional, if meager, contribution to this dialogue, began perhaps as far back as 1981 in our current era by Schaeffer, fleshed out by Hoppe, masterfully articulated by MacIntyre, and finally given a name by Dreher. The idea that the very thing many hold so dear, “the ideals of democracy and Americanism”, may have gone terribly wrong and is poised to end in socialism and authoritarianism or soft totalitarianism is difficult to swallow. Most ‘conservatives’ have come to believe in American exceptionalism, how could it have all ended up so wrong? We need a lot more ordinary folks, like me coming to understand, talk about and write about this issue. It will not just go away nor self-correct.
These are tough issues, and the implications and questions these issues raise are uncomfortable. Yet, they are vitally important. We need those Kirkean guys in tweed and the old men sitting around as country stores, each in their own ways to begin discussing thee issues.
Things have changed, the culture is lost and is not likely to be gained back. As Hoppe pointed out in Democracy, the God that Failed, western democracies began to move toward failure since the mid-19th century. The idea that government is a moral agent, a propensity to expand governmental power and forgo Constitutional constraints were the hallmarks of this demise. Not that the culture has abandoned truth, and long-held Christian metaphysical reality, we see the cost of all of this – if only just now in a glimpse. Worse is to come I am afraid.
Virginia is poised to be a test case of sorts, a formerly ‘red’ state with historic roots of respect for natural rights to life liberty and property and a large gun-owning population now under the control of radical progressives. The incoming legislature, buttressed by a progressive liberal governor is foaming at the mouth to test the limits of its power. Virginia Senate Bill SB 16 “It is unlawful for any person to import, sell, manufacture, purchase, possess or transport an assault firearm” and makes such actions a Class 6 felony. (The American Spectator) The definition of “assault weapons” is pretty broad meaning that many Virginia citizens, law-abiding citizens might find themselves faced with surrendering their property or losing their liberty, both violations of natural rights protected under the Constitutions of Virginia and the US.
This is no small matter.
Already there is posturing in Virginia and in Washington with bellicose words and subtle threats. 75 counties in Virginia have passed ordinances or resolutions stating county police and sheriff departments will not enforce laws that violate the right to bear arms. This is a direct plea to the common law principle of the sheriff acting as an intermediary between the people and other powers. Under common law, the sheriff had a duty not only to enforce the law but to protect the people from external oppression and tyranny. Many that hold to the concept of natural rights protected under the Constitution have theorized for years that a fight such as this might come down to good sheriffs performing their higher duty.
This inconvenient historical fact has not escaped the radicals either in Richmond nor Washington. Some are suggesting that the governor use the National Guard to carry out confiscations, others have advocated defunding sheriffs departments that do not toe the line. The governor mentioned recently curring off the power and water to those that do not comply.
Of course, all of this is premature. If SB16 passes, which it probably will, it will be tied up in court for months or years. That is really not the point of all this. The radicals know they will not be grabbing any guns come March or April of next year. This is really a show of force. They are forcing the issue in a state where such talk was once unimaginable. They are forcing real Americans to react, to become afraid and to show their hands. Talk of empowering sheriffs departments to resist bad laws is important and necessary but it brings the topic to the surface and allows the radicals to attack the notion long before the court cases are settled. They now know exactly which counties and which sheriffs might actually stand up, they have a target list.
In Retrenchment, I discuss Saul Alinsky who essentially wrote the rule book for the radical progressive movement in Rules for Radicals. There can be no reprieve to the traditional viewpoint he advised. Radicals must press the issue deep, ridicule, isolate and ostracized opposing views until the revolution is complete and the opposition silenced. He pointed out that Lenin was happy to use the ballot box as long as the other side had the guns but that Lenin was pleased to consider bullets once his side had the guns.
Alinsky also preached polarization, isolation, and ridicule as methods the left should use. Now that county boards and sheriffs have stood up to identify themselves the radicals know who to individually target. It is all an almost perfectly applied strategy out of Rules for Radicals.
Another point that Alinsky made was that the leaders of the progressive revolution must always find new targets to assault so that the mobs and supporters do not get bored. Alinsky did not have a lot of confidence in the base supporters of radicalism to really understand the issues, he thought leaders needed to help them. One method to help was to always present new issues and new fights and to focus on wins.
Gun control, a historically hotly contested issue, is an easy win for the radicals at this point. They have already won as much of the culture war as is possible at the moment, it is too soon for the next stages of that fight. But gun control, that is something they can push with a vengeance.
Even if SB16 ultimately fails in court, this test case will move the ball forward. They are frontally assaulting a former red state and hundreds of thousands of real Americans living there that cherish their rights. It is bold, audacious and just the beginning.
What we should find most disturbing in all of this are the words the radicals are using. They carelessly toss about the notion of using the National Guard, which is not the militia but is really just the part-time Army at this point. And using this army to go to the homes of citizens to enforce the law and take property. Let that sink in for a moment. These people are saying this out loud and without shame. They are willing to send an army to private citizens’ homes, potentially to do violence. We fought a revolution over that issue among others, now the radicals have come to see the power of the Government and of violence as a positive good. A tool they may use to complete their revolution.
If they so callously believe this is ok in this case do you believe for a moment they will not apply the same logic to future brilliant ideas they codify into law? Religious liberty, free speech, freedom of association? Do you honestly believe any of those notions are sacred and sacrosanct in light of these developments?
We are on a perilous road toward authoritarianism. The loss of the Cultural war by traditional America was never about marriage or monuments, it was about principles. It was a fight against one side saying that good ideas and intentions ought to outweigh natural rights and common-sense. It was a fight against one side telling everyone else what to think and believe. Now they show their full hand and their willingness to do violence against those that oppose them.
When Chick-fil-A fell and Kowtowed in the terrible event that will be remembered as the Cowtow of 2019 many suggested that if Christian Chicken could succumb to radical progressive pressure, no company large or small could. It seems now, that in addition to the traditional presentation of ‘gay’, as in sappy happy, Christmas movies on Hallmark the company now will promote the LGBTQ agenda as well. Less than 24 hours after Hallmark announced it would remove advertisements featuring a lesbian wedding they announced the following-
This is not surprising. It is the nature of the age we live in. The radical progressives are no longer the radicals – they own the culture.
If this upsets you or perplexes you, this means you are now the radical, the outsider looking in on a culture you do not understand. You are in the minority. It is time more folks came to fully understand that.
The SBC fought and cleared up errors in the “Battle for the Bible” beginning in 1979. It seems the SBC is poised for another fight, this time, it seems it is besieged by leaders deeply infatuated with error. The resolutions of the SBC during its convention this summer bode ill for the denomination and many Baptists that are paying attention and know better are not happy.
Watch the video here.
Critical theory is Marxism, it derives directly from it. It is WOKE ideology and it is dangerous.
As Chris Rosenburg commented: If you haven’t been keeping tabs on the SBC and their embracing of Critical Race Theory and the upheaval this is causing, then you need to see this documentary. It is a cautionary tale for ALL Christian denominations and a must-see.
The SBC is headed for a split and one side is headed toward an agreement with the UMC and “woke” mainline denominations.
I discuss the danger of adopting critical theory in Retrenchment.
Apparently, long before the full documentary was released many of the leaders of the SB, Woods, Moore, etc. objected strongly on social media and elsewhere to their own words being shown to demonstrate their positions, read bout that here.
In the off chance you think the implications I predict for the cultural war are either far fetched, alarmist, or just not possible in your life-time consider the change to Twitter’s recently updated policy regarding pedophilia:
“Discussions related to child sexual exploitation as a phenomenon or attraction towards minors are permitted, provided they don’t promote or glorify child sexual exploitation in any way,”Twitter policy
If one follows the line of logic from – “Love is Love” and “all points of view matter and all have equal value” and combine that with the prevailing view that no universal truth exists what do you end up with? If you add in the progressive tendency to call any idea and that disagrees with the above hate and anyone that holds such an unacceptable notion a bigot it seems only natural that all three of the sexual persuasions listed in the title above will soon be legal and accepted.
Think about it, following the LGBT logic it would be impossible to say that a person cannot marry two people, why not three of four even? If the state were to tell them “no” what would be the grounds for saying no? Legally we have already set the precedent that no real truth exists and everyone has the right to define their own happiness. To say “no” to a polygamist would acknowledge some truth exists, meaning maybe it also existed when same-sex-marriage was legalized; saying “no” to a polygamist would open up an uncomfortable can of worms for the left; so they will not say no, polygamy will be championed.
What of pedophiles? We already allow children to go through sex-change operations, we allow teenagers to get abortions, why not allow them to choose to participate with a pedophile in a sexual relationship? Twitter has just said it is ok to discuss this perversion in the public square? On what basis can anyone deny them the “right” to practice their desired sexual tastes? The left’s own logic says it must be allowed.
Bestiality is no different, up until 2014 bestiality brothels were legal in the Netherlands, they were legal in Germany until 2012 and were only closed because of international pressure. It was perhaps a bit too early for those sorts of people to come out loud and proud. But their time will come. Based on the progressive ideology, how can the state tell them “no”.
There are historical precedents for all three perversions being accepted by societies at various times. It is neither far-fetched nor unrealistic to posit that these things will soon enter the public square and the legal system in the United States. It is not unreasonable to suspect they will be accepted in some way.
I present the above as a concluding argument to my position that the cultural war is lost. Politics and politicians cannot and will not fix the ship. Big business is firmly on the side of making money – which means not offending the loud progressives. We are indeed headed for moral dark ages and there is little we can do to stop it. Only a miracle could prevent what has become of us turning ever darker.
Not all is doom and gloom, however. There are things authentic Christians ought to be doing right now to help keep the fire going and to equip our children and their children with truth. The main culture in America and the West is lost to us, and perhaps that is a good thing. Christ never promised that we would rule nor that moral and just societies were our lot in life. Since the 6th century, Christianity has held great influence and a positive effect on society and culture but those days are long gone.
There is no silent moral majority any more but there are enough authentic Christians to make a difference for the future if not for today.
I will not make the argument here again (for a while) that the cultural war is lost. It took me almost six years to accept this truth from the time real evidence was first presented to me. Words alone cannot convince someone that is not yet ready to hear. My latest book, The Philosophy of Commonsense, is about how we got here, my next two are about what we need to do now.
To those that simply say it is ridiculous to assume the bestiality and pedophilia must follow from the ideology of LGBT and perhaps accuse me of making an alarmist slippery-slope argument I ask simply – on what basis would society say “no” to these things. Every possible permutation of “no” relies upon some acknowledgment that there is some greater truth, some principle that says such would not be good. To rely on such would be an outright admission that ultimate truth actually exists. The leftist ideology cannot stand long once ultimate truth is acknowledged – therefore they will never admit such.
To those that say my view that authentic Christians will be viewed with growing disdain and eventual hate is overstated I ask you how two polar opposite visions of truth can exist side-by-side without animosity. To an authentic Christian there exists a metaphysical reality that we can only fully know through God. What we do see and what we can know of the cosmos, is but a part of the greater reality, but it is also reality itself. In such a reality one can no more deny the existence of the Sun and Moon than the existence of gender. Both exist as part of reality, to deny either is false, foolish and misinformed. Authentic Christians cannot deny such and remain real Christians, the Christological understanding of metaphysics is grounded in reality.
There will be those that call themselves Christians that make life much harder for authentic Christianity, social gospel types and those that are really just moralistic deist are at this very moment making great strides to separate themselves from the Christian view of the metaphysical reality and to proclaim to the world and culture that they are just like them, the nice open-minded Christians, not the “bigots”. These sorts have infiltrated the mainline denominations, they exist in many of the pop-church mega-churches, they dominate some seminaries. They will control millions of dollars of church property when it is all said and done, and represent something that resembles Christianity, the religious trappings, but will be nothing close to the real thing.
Real and authentic Christianity will find itself in a precarious, and perhaps dangerous position in the coming years. Other, wiser and smarter men said this long before me. I did not listen, it took a lot of convincing and more evidence. You do not have to believe me now, but you ought to at least consider these words and evaluate the trends for yourself.