There appears to be a battle going on inside Google between SJWs who want to fully converge the organization and more rational liberals who understand that way lies madness, reduced market share, and eventual disruption and decline.
Internal pressure is pushing for the expansion of hate speech to include everything and everyone that fails to submit to the SJW narrative, for more intense action against so-called “fake news”, and even broader definitions of “fake news”. So far, they are only cracking down on genuinely fake news, but there is some belief that this is the proverbial dipping the toe in the water, to see what they can do without provoking a backlash.
The victory of the God-Emperor Ascendant was a massive blow to the SJWs inside Google, and like most SJWs, they have completely lost the plot post-election. They were openly calling other Googlers racists, sexists, and homophobes just for voting for Trump. Those are firing offenses at Google. Google has insane civility requirements imposed on anyone talking to a member of a protected group, but apparently calling for all Republicans to be fired is perfectly acceptable.
Of course, if they were to get their way, this would be tantamount to Google cutting it’s own throat in the Age of Trump, but because the authorities there are amenable, the internal SJWs will not be excised and will continue to converge the organization.
But permitting the SJW infestation to get worse is short-sighted and self-defeating. Every social media organization which is corrupted and converged will be disrupted and replaced. Both Google and Amazon are keeping their SJW infestations under control for the time being, but the question is, how much longer before they can’t keep a lid on it and they go the way of Twitter, Apple, Wikipedia, and other declining technology giants.
The social media giants are increasingly demonstrating themselves to be the servitors of Big Brother. White is black, day is night, Islam means peace, and real news is fake news:
Under the guise of tackling “fake news,” Google is removing search results that pertain to crime statistics that show black people commit more crimes, despite the fact that this is widely documented to be true. An article in the Guardian entitled Google ‘must review its search rankings because of rightwing manipulation’ details how “leading academics” are pressuring Google to artificially edit its search algorithm to prevent certain subjects from appearing at the top of its search rankings. In response, the piece notes that Google has removed search results that suggest “black people commit more crimes”. Negative results about the religion of Islam were also removed. This is alarming given that virtually every metric proves that criminality is more prevalent in black communities compared to white and Hispanic communities in America. It’s an uncomfortable fact that black people commit more crimes than any other race in America, but it’s a fact nonetheless. Claiming that reality is actually “fake news” because it suits your political stance doesn’t change the nature of reality.
Despite making up just 13% of the population, blacks commit around half of homicides in the United States. DOJ statistics show that between 1980 and 2008, blacks committed 52% of homicides, compared to 45% of homicides committed by whites.
More up to date FBI statistics tell a similar story. In 2013, black criminals carried out 38% of murders, compared to 31.1% for whites, again despite the fact that there are five times more white people in the U.S. From 2011 to 2013, 38.5 per cent of people arrested for murder, manslaughter, rape, robbery, and aggravated assault were black. This figure is three times higher than the 13% black population figure. Black males aged 15-34, who account for around 3% of the population, are responsible for the vast majority of these crimes.
Despite being outnumbered by whites five to one, blacks commit eight times more crimes against whites than vice-versa, according to FBI statistics from 2007. A black male is 40 times as likely to assault a white person as the reverse.
While it is understandable that Google would want to prevent neo-nazi content from appearing at the top of its search rankings, the fact that the tech giant is now censoring objective facts under the justification of tackling “fake news” is chilling.
This indicates that Google, along with Facebook, Twitter, YouTube and other social media sites, are using the excuse of “fake news” to bury factual information that is inconvenient to leftist political narratives.
This dedication to falsehood and deception will only make it all the easier to disrupt them when the time comes. Furthermore, the charges of “neo-nazi” are every bit as dubious as the charge of “fake news”.
It’s one thing for one’s life to be transformed by the power of Jesus Christ. It is real. I have seen remarkable transformations of people’s hearts, character, behavior, and spirit take place in the lives of friends, acquaintances, and strangers. That being said, I’ve yet to see Christianity do much to transform one’s intellect, one’s height, or one’s intrinsic capacity for empathy or logic:
Black women have great faith in God, but they have a twisted understanding of His role. They do not pray for strength or courage. They pray for results: the satisfaction of immediate needs. One of my clients was a black woman who prayed in a circle with her accomplices for God’s protection from the police before they would set out to commit a robbery.
The mothers and grandmothers pray in the hallways–not for justice, but for acquittal. When I explain that the evidence that their beloved child murdered the shop keeper is overwhelming, and that he should accept the very fair plea bargain I have negotiated, they will tell me that he is going to trial and will “ride with the Lord.” They tell me they speak to God every day and He assures them that the young man will be acquitted.
Before you dismiss the observer as a hateful racist hater, consider that as a public defender of liberal persuasion, he not only spends more time than anyone reading this with low-income Africans attempting to help them, but has probably bled a considerably greater quantity of hearts-blood over their fates as well.
There was a fair amount of talk about EQ a few years ago, and there is an increasing amount of discussion of pathological altruism. What is gradually becoming apparent to me is that Western civilization not only requires a base level of intelligence, but also a base level of empathy. Any population group with an average level of either intelligence or empathy that falls below that level is not going to be able to participate in European civilization or sustain a reasonable facsimile on its own.
Christianity certainly helps support the development of empathy in an individual by providing a strong rational justification for it, but it observably does not create it ex nihilo in the human breast. I suspect it would be eucivically useful if there were standard tests for empathy as reliable as those for intelligence.
A reader asks about the possibility of disrupting YouTube:
I just finished Stefan’s podcast with you about Capitalism. The thing that really struck me is that one always has to be on the lookout for opportunities, something my dad always told me, but you resurfaced. And the example that struck me was Gab. In hindsight, it was an obvious decision. Everything lined up perfectly for its launch.
Which brings me to Youtube. A few months ago they launched their Youtube Heroes program, which is nothing more than an attempt to censor wrong groupthink under the guise of “preventing harassment”. However, alt-teching Youtube would have a much larger capital requirement than Infogalactic or Gab. I could easily see burning through $20k in hosting fees per month with no end in sight. So I was wondering:
What is your opinion on such an endeavor?
Technically its not too difficult, but without external VC, what would be a valid startup strategy?
What happens when the SJW police deem it to be “Youtube for racists” and advertisers are bullied to pull out?
From the financing side via donations do you see a donation model working with the much larger capital requirements?
I know that Vid.me made some passing comments on freedom of speech after Heroes was launched. However several high-profile accounts were suspended or shutdown this week for wrongthink. And they have yet to jump on such an opportunity.
In answer to his questions:
I think disrupting YouTube is biting off more than the Alt-Tech community can presently chew.
Backers with deep pockets. This is the sort of thing that the rich Republicans who finance think tanks and political action committees should be doing, but they’re not, because they fail to understand how technology and culture drive politics. For the money that was wasted on Jeb Bush’s futile campaign alone, both YouTube and Facebook could have been disrupted. The reason the Right has been losing the culture war for decades is because it has been stubbornly determined to fight the Vietnam War with WWI tactics.
Bully right back. Go after the competitors advertisers; it’s not as if they aren’t supporting pedophilia and a whole host of dyscivic and even dyscivilizational sins considerably worse than “racism”. Concerns about “racism” are so 1980s, they’re not even remotely relevant to a multiethnic, multicultural, multireligious society now engaged in bare knuckles identity politics.
No. It’s a chicken or the egg situation. Like VC, donations tend to flow most freely when they are totally unnecessary. For example, Infogalactic’s donations presently run about 1/2500 that of Wikipedia. We’ll beat them anyhow, thanks to the Original Galaxians, the Techstars, and the Burn Unit, but it’s a bit ironic that people are least inclined to donate when the Alt-Tech organizations need it most. Once Gab and Infogalactic have successfully disrupted Twitter and Wikipedia, that will be the time bigger prey can be targeted, because more people will believe it to be possible.
Timing is everything. It’s the right time to disrupt Twitter. It’s the right time to disrupt Wikipedia. It’s too soon to disrupt YouTube or Facebook. They’re simply too big and insufficiently vulnerable to credibly take on at the moment. But, it’s true, their censorious actions tend to indicate that they will be vulnerable to an alt-teching in the future.
And, of course, I would be remiss if I failed out to remind you that you, too, can be a part of the Great Disrupting by the Alt-Tech by subscribing or donating to Infogalactic. I’m informed that Infogalactic is currently at 8.5 percent of the Phase Two goal, and 15 percent of the inital goal of a 1000-strong Burn Unit. The good news is that the Techstars are getting close on the phase one speedups that Infogalactic needs to become functionally competitive with Wikipedia.
You know how everyone says “someone ought to do something?” Well, the Infogalactic team is doing just that. Be a part of it.
It’s always interesting to speak with Stefan Molyneux; this time we were talking about business, work, and success. In my opinion, the important thing to accept about success is understanding that it’s not you. Sure, you have to work hard and do your part, but you are not the only factor. You are FAR from the only factor. There are a number of factors involved, and of them all, timing is almost certainly the most important. Sometimes you can recognize, but more often, it’s just a matter of luck.
Some say that luck is made, but I think it is more akin to something that you have to be already working to exploit for the moment it arrives. I think of it like a surfer and a big wave. If you haven’t taken the time to learn to surf, bought a surfboard, then swum out to sea, you’re not going to catch it. If you’re on land and you see it, it’s already too late.
Our big point of disagreement was about volunteers. I think they are crucial, so long as you’re willing to be ruthless about weeding out those who don’t make the grade for many, many different reasons. Stefan is dubious about them, but I can state for a fact that neither Castalia nor Infogalactic nor Gab would have gotten anywhere without a reliable core of dedicated, hard-working volunteers.
Scott Cole of the Castalia House blog interviews Castalia author John C. Wright about his recently completed trilogy, (and first quarter of his MOTH & COBWEB duodecology) The Green Knight’s Squire, which consists of the following three books:
Scott Cole: After reading both books my thought is the series is influenced by The Once and Future King and shares similarities with the Book of Revelations (i.e. descriptions of some of the beasts, especially at the first elf tournament), Shakespeare, Narnian anthropomorphism, and Sergei Lukyanenko’s Night Watch along with a multiple mythological references.
John C Wright: You are a little off, but not too far. Any similarity with Lukyanenko’s NIGHT WATCH is pure coincidence. Shakespeare I certainly steal from, but I don’t recall stealing anything from Narnia, aside from a mood. I am not a fan of T.S. White; I take my Arthuriana from Mallory and the Mabinogion and Tennyson’s IDYLLS OF THE KING. Alan Gardner’s WEIRDSTONE OF BRISINGAMEN is also an inspiration.
Since the book is called SWAN KNIGHT’S SON’S SQUIRE, expect to see the events of THE SWAN KNIGHT’S SON played out. Also, I decided to borrow the bad guys from G.K. Chesterton’s THE MAN WHO WAS THURSDAY, and to make Gil a member of the Last Crusade.
SC:What was the inspiration for the Moth and Cobweb series?
JCW: Once upon a time I asked my editor, Vox Day, what I could write that would reach a wider audience. He suggested writing something aimed at the juvenile market, and said that talking animals were always popular. He also admired my short story ‘A Parliament of Beast and Birds’ which appeared in the anthology BOOK OF FEASTS AND SEASONS.
The mystery of where writers get their ideas is a perennial one, but the truth is that we have no more ideas than anyone else. The difference is that, unlike muggles, we write our ideas down and use them. Every writer I have ever met keeps a notebook in purse or pocket or in his smartphone where he jots down ideas.
So, I threw the idea of a talking animal into the pot and looked through my notebook of unused ideas to find what else might go into the stew. Usually a writer needs three ideas to get the ball rolling.
I had the germ of an idea that had been in the back of my mind for some years, a juvenile originally set in a mythical place called Uncanny Valley, Nevada, where four seniors in high school, cousins, each had to do an apprenticeship or internship over the summer with one or another of their mad uncles. Instead of the normal jobs, because some of their uncles were from beyond the fields we know, the kids end up being a squire to a knight, the sidekick to a superhero, a sorcerer’s apprentice, or something of the sort.
A second idea came not from my notebook but from my wife’s Harry Potter inspired role playing game. Like all the games we run, we made up our own rules. In her role playing game, she decided that in addition to buying character stats like strength or scholarship, dexterity and intelligence, you could also buy social stats like fortune, friends, fame, and family. So, for example, an orphan with a vast bank account would have a zero in family and high marks in fortune, whereas a poor boy from a large and supportive family would have the opposite.
One innovation in her rule system, which I had not seen used elsewhere, was that each player had a star he could use to mark one stat and only one he had purchased, and this carried a secret benefit revealed in the course of the game. So, for example, putting a star in scholarship gave the character total recall. Putting the star in family meant you were a member of the largest and most supportive extended family imaginable, the children of the seneschal of Titania, the Moths. This did not give you any magic powers, but it meant that you had uncles and cousins both in the human world and beyond, including royalty, famous scientists, mermaids, and so on. Indeed, my wife had umpired more than one game with these rules, so it became sort of a running joke that I always played a member of the Moth family. My first character was named Dusty Moth, and he was a cowboy from Utah, and an amateur alchemist, who had the blood of elves in his background.
The third idea came from the song ERLKOENIG or the medieval tale of TAM LIN, where a boy is being sold by the elfs to hell. I had noticed that elfs and fairy creatures from the days before Tolkien and Gary Gygax, and indeed from before Shakespeare’s MIDSUMMER NIGHT’S DREAM, were actually quite spooky and frightening, not the pretty and twee tween girls of Disney’s Tinkerbell cartoons.
I noticed traces of the sulfurous scent of the inferno clinging even to such recent and childish works as DARBY O’GILL AND THE LITTLE PEOPLE, a favorite film of mine, based on an older series of books, where the Leprechauns are terrified by the powers of a parish priest, whose blessings and exorcisms can shrivel them. Even in the lighthearted Disney version, as in the original books, the elfs are angelic beings who neither aided Satan during his rebellion, nor fought on the side of Heaven, and so were cast out of paradise, but not all the way to Hell.
It’s a really good interview. Read the rest of it there. And the books are really good as well. If you ever enjoyed Susan Cooper or Lloyd Alexander, you will almost certainly enjoy John C. Wright’s MOTH & COBWEB series.
The Rotherham child sexual exploitation scandal first “broke” in the far-right blogosphere. The accusation they made was that these gangs were being allowed to operate undisturbed because everyone was too afraid of “appearing racist” to properly investigate them . . . and nobody listened to the far-right bloggers who were breaking this story because they were afraid of “appearing racist” if they gave any credibility to those far-right sources, too. Never mind that it seemed paranoid to rely on bloggers to report truths like these when the allegations were so wide-reaching, involving a literal conspiracy within the police force.
And yet, years after no one was willing to take them seriously, the far-right blogosphere turned out to be right.
Well over a thousand (mostly) white young girls were being abused by (mostly) Pakistani gangs.
And the authorities were covering it up.
We are now, once again, in the stage of an evolving scandal that Mehrdad Amanpour described his experience with above. Just to be clear, I’m not going to commit myself to the idea that this is going to be as huge as Rotherham was. We should be careful: we don’t know what would or wouldn’t be confirmed with a proper investigation. The question here is not whether we’ve gotten to the bottom of this online. The question is whether there is enough here to justify thinking there should be a proper investigation.
And the parallel with Rotherham is that the relatively small number of people asking for that are mostly the loathsome kinds of people who run “racist far-right websites.” So, since the claims are inherently conspiratorial, and the mainstream doesn’t want to be associated with those people who are talking about it, it is once again all too easy to just dismiss the claims out of hand as paranoia run wild.
Again, the evolution of the Rotherham child sexual exploitation scandal was an extremely painful lesson that the mainstream can be wrong and the “paranoid racist far-right” can be right. And that lesson was far too expensive to simply let go to waste.
The name of this scandal is Pizzagate.
It is always a mistake to dismiss facts because one does not approve of the messenger. It is, in fact, a formal failure of logic known as the Genetic Fallacy. The sun does not become the not-sun simply because the Alt-Right calls it the sun anymore than a man becomes a woman because an SJW calls him a her; that is a form of magical thinking and it is intrinsically illogical.
The fact is that we don’t know what lies beneath the smoke of Pizzagate. There may or may not be hellfire there. But one need not subscribe to all of the 16 Points to scent a distinct odor of sulfur. In any event, this is a useful summary for mainstream readers who are understandably reluctant to venture forth into the dank swamps of the chans.
It’s intriguing to see that the fake “attack” on Comet Ping Pong appears to be convincing Hillary Clinton voters to look further into Pizzagate.
Do you believe that society should draw the line at all when it comes to limitations on hate speech?
No. Hate speech laws are wrong. The question – not a question, but THE question – is ‘who gets to define hate?” That’s not to say there’s no such thing as hate speech – clearly there is. Hate speech laws repress, and I mean that in the psycho-analytical sense. They drive [hate speech] underground. It’s not a good idea, because things get ugly when you drive them underground. They don’t disappear, they just fester, and they’re not subject to correction. I made these videos, and they have been subject to a tremendous amount of correction over the last six weeks. I don’t just mean from my public response, but also partly from the university’s response, partly from a group of friends who have been reviewing my videos and criticizing them to death. This is why free speech is so important. You can struggle to formulate some argument, but when you throw it out into the public, there’s a collective attempt to modify and improve that. So with the hate speech issue – say someone’s a Holocaust denier, because that’s the standard routine – we want those people out there in the public so you can tell them why they’re historically ignorant, and why their views are unfounded and dangerous. If you drive them underground, it’s not like they stop talking to each other, they just don’t talk to anyone who disagrees with them. That’s a really bad idea and that’s what’s happening in the United States right now. Half of the country doesn’t talk to the other half. Do you know what you call people you don’t talk to? Enemies.
If you have enemies, you have war.
If you stop talking to people, you either submit to them, or you go to war with them. Those are your options and those aren’t good options. It’s better to have a talk. If you put restrictions on speech, then you can’t actually talk about the difficult things that need to be talked about. I have about 20,000 hours of clinical practice and all I do for 20 hours a week is talk to people about difficult things – the worst things that are going on in their lives. These are hard conversations all the time. The conversations that are the most curative are simultaneously the ones that are most difficult and most dangerous. Most normal people will not have those conversations. That’s why so many marriages dissolve. People don’t like to have those conversations. Part of that too, is because – let’s say you have a little tiff with your wife, and you know there’s more to it than the little thing that’s bothering her, and you ask ‘what are you REALLY upset about’? Try peeling that back. You might find she’s upset about something her grandfather did to her grandmother two generations ago that hasn’t yet been resolved within the family, and that’s the determining element of her attitude at the present moment. If you unpack it though, then you don’t have to live it over and over again.
There’s also this idea that you shouldn’t say things that hurt people’s feelings – that’s the philosophy of the compassionate left. It’s so childish it’s beyond comprehension. What did Nietzsche say: ‘you can judge a man’s spirit by the amount of truth he can tolerate.’ I tell my students this too, you can tell when you’re being educated because you’re horrified. So if its pleasant and safe, it’s like you’re not learning anything. People learn things the hard way.
People learn things the hard way because MPAI. The reason why the mainstream media and the Left hate the Alt-Right so much is that unlike the conservatives and moderates, they understand that we will never submit to them. And the reason they fear us is that they know we will utilize every tactic they use against us. Especially because every time they deny us a platform, we simply build a replacement, and moreover, one that is actually superior to the original platform.
I don’t have a problem with hate speech laws. After all, there are so many kinds of hate speech that need to be banned.
Sarah Hoyt, we are pleased to report is alive, while her fellow Mad Genius wonders what, exactly, the SF-SJWs expect the Sad Puppies to do about me, and by extension, the Rabid Puppies:
Essentially as result of inactivity the Puppies left the field to Vox and “Raptor Butt invasion.” Which was funny for a while, but after a while you realize that it’s puppy butt that’s being invaded.
OMFG. I don’t know whether to beat my head against the wall or the OP’s. That statement is not that much removed from that of the other side telling SPs they had to denounce Vox or it proved we were all cut from the same cloth. One thing those of us closely involved with the Sad Puppy movement learned in 2015 is that there is nothing anyone can do to rein in Vox. We would have had Raptor Butt no matter what. Vox will do what he wants, when he wants and he doesn’t give a flying fuck who he bumps against in the process.
That’s why it’s important to pursue anti-fragility if you are not inclined to submit to being thought-policed. It gives one that freedom to think, speak, and act as one sees fit. That doesn’t mean I’m free of all constraint, of course, it’s only that I am answerable to my supporters rather than megacorporations who could not care less about me and ideological enemies who seek to destroy my career and many of the things I value as well as many of the things in which I believe.
As for Rabid Puppies, I don’t know exactly what we’ll do yet next year; with the Hugo rules changes and the establishment of the Dragon Awards, new strategies are required. It’s always wise to reassess the situation when it changes, and the ongoing growth of Castalia House also means that we have to reconsider and prioritize our objectives. But regardless, we’ll always have “Space Raptor Butt Invasion”, and we’ll always sport these with pride.
It’s always easy to tell when a group of people have given themselves over to untruth. Their philosophy, their theology, and their politics all rapidly become observably incoherent. Evangelicals, and many of the evangelical organizations, are now following the example of other Christian denominations in walking the broad and easy path towards Hell, and they are doing so on the basis of their mealy-mouthed Sunday School Churchianity.
As the election retreats like a hurricane heading back out to sea, first responders are assessing the damage left in its wake. One casualty is the reputation of evangelicalism. Evangelicalism was closely associated with the campaign of Donald J. Trump, and more than 80 percent of white evangelicals voted for the president-elect. This, despite large numbers of African-American, Latino, Asian, young and female evangelicals who were fiercely opposed to the racism, sexism and xenophobia of Mr. Trump’s campaign and the hypocrisy of a candidate who built a casino empire while flouting morality.
As a result, much of the good that went by the name “evangelicalism” has been clouded over; now a new movement is needed to replace it.
When it comes to religious identity in America, the fastest-growing group is the “nones.” Nearly a quarter of all Americans, and over 35 percent of millennials, report no religious affiliation. Nones, many of whom grew up within evangelicalism, often still affirm faith in God. They left the church because they gave up on evangelical leadership. Nothing sums up their objections more clearly than evangelicals’ embrace of Mr. Trump. Didn’t Jesus say, “Blessed are the meek” and “Love your enemies”?
Throughout the campaign, there was dissent even within the ranks of evangelicalism’s most conservative institutions. While the old guard, like the Focus on the Family founder James Dobson, were ardent Trump supporters, the best-selling evangelical author Max Lucado and the Southern Baptist leader Russell Moore were both early critics. At Liberty University, the largest evangelical college in the country, thousands of students signed a petition denouncing the support of its president, Jerry Falwell Jr., for Mr. Trump and insisting that they were more interested in being Christian than in being Republican.
Andy Crouch, the executive editor of Christianity Today, criticized both candidates, writing that enthusiasm for Mr. Trump “gives our neighbors ample reason to doubt that we believe Jesus is Lord.” He added, “They see that some of us are so self-interested, and so self-protective, that we will ally ourselves with someone who violates all that is sacred to us.”
As white male evangelists, we have no problem admitting that the future does not lie with us. It lies with groups like the National Latino Evangelical Coalition, led by Gabriel Salguero, or the Moral Monday movement, led by William Barber II, who has challenged the news media on its narrow portrayal of evangelicals. For decades, we have worked within evangelicalism to lift up the voices of these “other evangelicals.”
But we cannot continue to allow sisters and brothers who are leading God’s movement to be considered “other.” We are not confident that evangelicalism is a community in which younger, nonwhite voices can flourish. And we are not willing to let our faith be the collateral damage of evangelicalism.
We want to be clear: We are not suggesting a new kind of Christianity that simply backs the Democratic Party. Jesus is neither a Democrat nor a Republican — even if, as William Sloane Coffin Jr. once said, his heart leans left. Many faithful Christians did not vote for Hillary Clinton because of their commitment to a consistent pro-life agenda. True faith can never pledge allegiance to anything less than Jesus.
But Jesus-centered faith needs a new name. Christians have retired outdated labels before. During the late 19th century, when scientific rationalism fueled the questioning of Scripture, “fundamentalism” arose as an intelligent defense of Christianity. By the 1930s, however, fundamentalism was seen as anti-intellectual and judgmental. It was then that the term “evangelicalism” was put forward by Christianity Today’s first editor, Carl F. H. Henry, as a new banner under which a broad coalition of Jesus followers could unite.
But beginning with the culture wars of the 1980s, the religious right made a concerted effort to align evangelicalism with the Republican Party. By the mid-’90s, the word had lost its positive connotations with many Americans. They came to see Christians — and evangelicals in particular — as anti-women, anti-gay, anti-environment and anti-immigrant and as the champions of guns and war.
Mr. Trump did not create these contradictions, but his victory has pulled the roof off the building we once called home. It’s time to build a new home.
The amusing thing about their philosophical ineptitude is that they don’t realize they are making an overt case for Christian theocracy, the reality of which would of course horrify them because they have absolutely no intention of abiding by anything genuinely Christian at all; this is nothing more than shallow pandering to the worldly zeitgeist using a few inappropriately applied Bible verses as justification.
Moreover, it demonstrates that at least when it comes to Churchianity, race trumps religion in the hierarchy of identity politics. As usual, the Alt-Right perspective is the only one that makes any sense of this incoherent and degraded evangelicism.
Here is a useful metric for Christians: if the New York Times Carlos Slim’s blog is affording you space for your views and generally striking a positive tone about them, you are absolutely wrong and whatever you are pushing is antithetical to genuine Christianity. No one – no one – is ever going to be inspired to follow Jesus Christ as a result of your pandering to the approval of the global elite. It is literally anti-evangelist evangelicism and its new home is godless churchianism.
