Tag: Christianity

Mark Shea is a shameless liar

Catholic ubercuck Mark Shea lies about Jesus Christ, lies about Christianity, lies about a verse from Galatians, and lies about the Alt-Right.

Alt Right worshippers of blood and race have made an idol of whiteness. As though your skin is a culture and, worse, as though your skin is a god. They subordinate the God of the universe to a mere prop authorizing the skin idolator to fall down in worship of his race and, accordingly, to excuse the oppression and destruction of those he deems inferior to his Master Race.

The contempt of the Alt Right for “Cuck Christianity” relies on a narrative that confirms what I have come to call “Herreid’s Law”. My friend John Herreid observed some time ago that when people bedeck their Facebook page with pictures of knights, crusaders, or paladins, they tend to be kooks. The Alt Right Christian invariably does this, and their race kookiness is manifest. They only value the Christian tradition for giving them an iconography of white people killing brown ones. But of course, the Faith (and especially the Catholic faith) is chockablock with brown people–and brown saints.

Not surprising really since her Lord was brown–a standard Middle Eastern Jew of the first century. Somebody who would have been on one of Steve Bannon’s travel bans and deemed a danger by the Race Theorist of the Alt Right. Happily for us northern European stock, he put no stock in Alt Right racist crap and declared membership in his Body, the Church, open to anybody–even white supremacists idiots if they would only repent their white supremacist idiocy and confess that in Christ Jesus there is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, black nor white. That’s a tall order for some of these idiots. But repentance and salvation is open to anyone, even members of the Alt Right.

It is not worshiping blood and race, nor making an idol of whiteness, to recognize that DNA exists, race exists, and that differences in DNA and race have a profound effect on culture and society alike. That is a lie for which Mark Shea will be held accountable, both in this world and the next.

It is not true that the Alt-Right only values Christian tradition for giving us “an iconography of white people killing brown ones”. Quite to the contrary, we value Western civilization, also known as Christendom, and even those of us who are not Christians value the Christian tradition as one of the three foundational pillars of the West, without which it cannot survive. That is another lie for which Mark Shea will be held accountable, both in this world and the next.

Jesus Christ most certainly did put at least some stock in “Alt Right racist crap”, as he declared in Matthew 15:24-26, He answered, “I was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.” But she came and knelt before him, saying, “Lord, help me.” And he answered, “It is not right to take the children’s bread and throw it to the dogs. That is another lie for which Mark Shea will be held accountable, both in this world and the next.

Finally, while it is true that “in Christ Jesus there is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female,”, it is not true that in the world in which the Christian is in, but not of, there is Greek and Jew, slave and free, male and female.” Notice that he deceitfully added “black nor white”, which neither Jesus nor Paul said. Since Paul also told slaves that they remain slaves, and since Paul also condemned men having sex with men, it is obviously true that Mark Shea’s citation of this verse to claim that those various differences do not exist in the world for the Christian today is dishonest, deceptive, and theologically false.

I submit that this is conclusive evidence proving that Mark Shea is a liar, a deceiver, an accuser, and a false follower of the Truth. There is no truth in him. No man who considers himself to be a Christian should pay this wormtongue any heed or respect, and he should be confronted by his church authorities and called upon to publicly repent of his lies and false accusations.

Cuckservatism and Churchianity are not Christianity. Their lies and falsehoods preclude the possibility. Judeo-Christ is not Jesus Christ, he is literally antichrist.

And I have a verse for Mr. Shea that may be wise for him to keep in mind in light of his little additions to Galatians 3:28, which actually reads as follows: There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.

Do you see anything about “black nor white”? Because I don’t. Isn’t it amazing how the Bible once more proves to be prophetic?

Do not add to His words Or He will reprove you, and you will be proved a liar.
– Proverbs 30:6

The devil that is Disney

Disney is not merely SJW-converged, it is openly and avowedly evil:

The upcoming second season of the Disney Channel series Andi Mack will mark the first time the network has created a story line in which a character realizes he is gay. The story arc will involve Cyrus Goodman (played by Joshua Rush), who discovers he has feelings for another male character. ‘The Disney brand has always been inclusive, with stories that reflect acceptance and tolerance and celebrate the differences that make our characters uniquely wonderful in their own way,’ the Walt Disney company said in a statement to Entertainment Weekly.

In the story, Cyrus begins to have a crush on Jonah Beck (Asher Angel), who also happens to be the same boy their mutual friend, Andi Mack, is pining for. Cyrus shares his feelings for Jonah with his good friend Buffy (Sofia Wylie), who becomes his supportive shoulder to lean on. Cyrus’ understanding of his sexuality will be a story that continues throughout the series.

Do you remember hearing how Disney loved the song “Let It Go” so much that they created an entire movie to go around it? Did you ever ask yourself what it was they loved so much about it?

Don’t let them in, don’t let them see
Be the good girl you always have to be
Conceal, don’t feel, don’t let them know
Well, now they know!


It’s time to see what I can do
To test the limits and break through
No right, no wrong, no rules for me
I’m free!

Disney is run by literal satanists preaching Alastair Crowley’s “do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law” to children. They are one of the primary engine’s of the West’s degeneracy and decline. It is not an accident that everything they touch, in every industry, turns into morally radioactive slime.

“The Lopezes and “Let It Go” won the 2013 Academy Award for Best Original Song.”

You don’t say. It’s such a surprise that the moral cesspool of Hollywood thought well of it.

Mailvox: Churchian convergence, Senator Cuck, and Generation Rebel

CK discovers that truth is now hate in the eyes of the converged Churchians on Facebook:

Apparently saying that 3 does not equal 1 now qualifies as “hate speech.” An episode unfolded yesterday here in town that exposed just how far gone even most conservative evangelicalism is in riding the inclusivity train right off the cliff.

A local Christian women’s Facebook group, after a couple months of ambiguity, determined to update their policy to clarify that they were open to Christians only, not unbelievers. My friend politely asked what this did and didn’t mean, since there were Mormons in the group as well, who by definition are not monotheists. The group admin *deleted* her comments, then, when confronted, insisted that she had somehow done so by accident.

So my friend dutifully posted again, bending over backwards to coat her words with grace and love, and merely noting that it was important to be clear that Christians and Mormons don’t really share the same faith at all, so the group should be simply be renamed for the sake of clarity and accuracy. A Mormon friend of hers cheerfully rejoined and said that actually Mormons are Christians, and another said, “Yeah, we believe the Trinity—three distinct beings in one Godhead, etc.”

My wife piped up briefly to say, “Well, see, that’s the problem. Actually Christians don’t believe in three distinct beings” and quoted from the Athanasian Creed. One of the Mormons responded fairly defensively seeking to justify the Mormon view from Scripture.

At that point, the group admin shut down the thread, declaring that it was not glorifying to God, the devil was at work, it was hateful and slanderous, and posted a general rebuke warning people not to debate their beliefs. This was the cue for the other (mostly conservative evangelical) people in the group to pile on and accuse my wife and her friend of “hate speech.”

Meanwhile, BP in Arizona is entirely unimpressed with his departing senator:

I know you keep being right on just about everything, but it is still strange and impressive to watch it happen, again and again, exactly as predicted.  Watching Senator Jeff Flake (may God forget he was our countryman) talk about muh principles, while blubbering about all of Trump’s failure of character, leadership, etc, ad nauseum, and then quitting, announcing he isn’t running for re-election…

Well, you nailed it, exactly, again.  Flake is everything you said conservatives are and have become was illustrated perfectly in that self-important speech, in all its limp-wristed glory.  What an amazing cuck.  It also amazes me that the idiocy he says is self-evidently false, and yet he stands up there and says it anyway, illustrating he’s an evil, duplicitous, lying, traitorous bastard, or he’s just the stupidest, most egotistical asshole ever.  Arizona is going to be so much better off with him and McCain gone, and so will the rest of the country.

Drain the swamp, and MAGA!

And finally, a woman writes in of her husband’s unexpected enthusiasm for Alt★Hero:

So Sig. Other, after over 10 years of mocking me for my mild interest in comics, has not only backed the Alt-Hero campaign at the figurine level, he suggested Rebel as a middle name for our daughter. While the name would be a tribute to his Southern heritage and not the character, he admitted he wouldn’t have thought of it if it weren’t for Alt-Hero.

Thought you’d be amused. Alt-Hero is changing hearts and minds already.

I am indeed amused. But taken in the whole, it should be readily apparent that across the increasingly divided West we are now caught up in a full-blown culture war. It is still a cold war, in that it is merely livelihoods rather than lives that are being lost, but it is clear that the conflict is gradually heating up.

So much for civic Christianity

Evangelicals are discovering that racial identity trumps religious identity:

It is critical to note that the issues for which they left the immigrant churches weren’t doctrinal or theological, but cultural.

Today, it seems like a “Reverse Exodus” is taking place for very similar reasons. Like Lecrae, people of color are finding that white evangelical churches and institutions fail to truly embrace them. After doing their best to carve out a space for themselves within white evangelicalism, give it a fair shot (or multiple shots), and even endure through the challenges for decades, there is a growing number of people of color who are seeking places where they can finally feel at home, while still yearning for the greater eternal home….

Well, the solutions are actually quite simple. This does not mean the solutions aren’t costly or difficult, but they are simple: at every layer of evangelical leadership, allow for a solid concentration of evangelicals of color to occupy culture-shaping positions of authority. Again, the problem wasn’t theology, but culture.

We need to be aware of how we bring unconscious biases to our own litmus tests of whether people of color are theologically correct enough based on their emphasis on justice issues. Often times, people of color are viewed with greater scrutiny simply because of their skin tone. We need to be concerned with the ways our political commitments co-opt our faith commitments. The fact that people equate Christians with a particular political party is problematic, especially if we consider how both parties are deeply flawed. We need to redefine our understanding of organizational fit. This means we need to reconsider what it means to be equipped. For example, is someone equipped for the pastorate if they have racist tendencies or beliefs? And who gets to decide if they do, white people or the people they disparage?

Isn’t it remarkable that the solution is always More Magic People of Color no matter whether the problem concerns football coaches, technology companies, or Christianity? I wonder what the common factor might possibly be?

SJWs Always Double Down addresses what is happening here. This is exhortation by an infiltrator, appealing to an extremely amenable authority.

Another bite of the apple

SJWs are attempting to further converge the evangelical church in the name of “racial unity”:

The willingness of evangelicals of color to remain will likely change when they begin to realize that they too are the token/mascot/poster child for white evangelical churches or institutions. Unless white evangelicalism wakes up to the realities that it’s unwillingness to sufficiently change keeps it behind the culture, instead of leading prophetically with a clear vision of the Kingdom of God, the exodus will ensue.

My hope is we can work towards an equitable unity where all people mutually submit to and honor each other.

But how do we do this?

Well, the solutions are actually quite simple. This does not mean the solutions aren’t costly or difficult, but they are simple: at every layer of evangelical leadership, allow for a solid concentration of evangelicals of color to occupy culture-shaping positions of authority. Again, the problem wasn’t theology, but culture.

We need to be aware of how we bring unconscious biases to our own litmus tests of whether people of color are theologically correct enough based on their emphasis on justice issues. Often times, people of color are viewed with greater scrutiny simply because of their skin tone. We need to be concerned with the ways our political commitments co-opt our faith commitments. The fact that people equate Christians with a particular political party is problematic, especially if we consider how both parties are deeply flawed. We need to redefine our understanding of organizational fit. This means we need to reconsider what it means to be equipped. For example, is someone equipped for the pastorate if they have racist tendencies or beliefs? And who gets to decide if they do, white people or the people they disparage?

We also need to be mindful of how networks and credibility is established. Consider who is promoted within evangelicalism through publishing deals. If a Christian publisher looks through their catalogues and white people overwhelmingly occupy the authorial space, it is likely because the people they have come across were developed through their white evangelical network. Consider who speaks at conferences like The Gospel Coalition and Together for the Gospel and you’ll see how people who had local or regional platforms, now have national or international ones. Whether you are aware of it or not, we normalize whiteness in evangelicalism by having an overwhelming majority of white speakers and only one or two plenary speakers of color. Consider the ways in which people get mentored. There are tremendous barriers to mentorship felt by Christians of color who would say they hold the same faith commitments and convictions as evangelicals do, but don’t either know or have an entry point into these networks (I fortunately, had people who helped me navigate in, but I am a part of the exception, not the rule). Consider who is appointed the most senior level leadership roles and how they are found and determined upon. It cannot be true that only white people are “called” to these positions of authority and influence and people of color are not.

If white evangelicalism is serious about representing the unity Christ calls us to in this world, this means you cannot find successors who preach like you do, see the world like you do, and share the same skin tone as you. This means Thabiti Anyabwile or Bryan Lorritts (or any of the small handful of others) cannot be the only black preachers in your conferences (despite their wonderful gifts). This means that conferences need to provide substantial opportunities for Asians and Latinos and Native Americans to speak as well. This means that senior leadership at churches cannot be satisfied with a disproportionate percentage of white pastors/elders to non-white pastors/elders.

Further, we need to look deeply into the reasons why leaders of color who occupy the top spots in Christian (evangelical) organizations and churches do not last. This means we need to have the humility to listen, but not just listen, and act upon the problems we see. This also means evangelicalism needs to allow people of color to speak for themselves and on their own terms. We also need to create pipelines for evangelicals of color to grow in leadership opportunities (see what Intervarsity did with the Daniel Project) because we know that leadership matters and that leadership shapes organizations.

Is there any problem that more Magic People of Color can’t solve? It’s rather remarkable how the solution to every “problem” identified by SJWs is the same, no matter whether the institution is a technology company, a position on the football team, or the evangelical church.

How do Christians not see the evil in this? How do they not smell the sulferous stink of Babylon?

The morality of immigration

Correcting the common confusion of Churchian dogma with actual Christian philosophy:

In looking at the debate over immigration, it is almost automatically assumed that the Church’s position is one of unconditional charity toward those who enter the nation, legally or illegally.

However, is this the case? What does the Bible say about immigration? What do Church doctors and theologians say? Above all, what does the greatest of doctors, Saint Thomas Aquinas, say about immigration? Does his opinion offer some insights to the burning issues now shaking the nation and blurring the national borders?

Immigration is a modern problem and so some might think that the medieval Saint Thomas would have no opinion about the problem. And yet, he does. One has only to look in his masterpiece, the Summa Theologica, in the first part of the second part, question 105, article 3 (I-II, Q. 105, Art. 3). There one finds his analysis based on biblical insights that can add to the national debate. They are entirely applicable to the present.

Saint Thomas: “Man’s relations with foreigners are twofold: peaceful, and hostile: and in directing both kinds of relation the Law contained suitable precepts.”

Commentary: In making this affirmation, Saint Thomas affirms that not all immigrants are equal. Every nation has the right to decide which immigrants are beneficial, that is, “peaceful,” to the common good. As a matter of self-defense, the State can reject those criminal elements, traitors, enemies and others who it deems harmful or “hostile” to its citizens.

The second thing he affirms is that the manner of dealing with immigration is determined by law in the cases of both beneficial and “hostile” immigration. The State has the right and duty to apply its law.

Saint Thomas: “For the Jews were offered three opportunities of peaceful relations with foreigners. First, when foreigners passed through their land as travelers. Secondly, when they came to dwell in their land as newcomers. And in both these respects the Law made kind provision in its precepts: for it is written (Exodus 22:21): ’Thou shalt not molest a stranger [advenam]’; and again (Exodus 22:9): ’Thou shalt not molest a stranger [peregrino].’”

Commentary: Here Saint Thomas acknowledges the fact that others will want to come to visit or even stay in the land for some time. Such foreigners deserved to be treated with charity, respect and courtesy, which is due to any human of good will. In these cases, the law can and should protect foreigners from being badly treated or molested.

Saint Thomas: “Thirdly, when any foreigners wished to be admitted entirely to their fellowship and mode of worship. With regard to these a certain order was observed. For they were not at once admitted to citizenship: just as it was law with some nations that no one was deemed a citizen except after two or three generations, as the Philosopher says (Polit. iii, 1).”

Commentary: Saint Thomas recognizes that there will be those who will want to stay and become citizens of the lands they visit. However, he sets as the first condition for acceptance a desire to integrate fully into what would today be considered the culture and life of the nation.

A second condition is that the granting of citizenship would not be immediate. The integration process takes time. People need to adapt themselves to the nation. He quotes the philosopher Aristotle as saying this process was once deemed to take two or three generations. Saint Thomas himself does not give a time frame for this integration, but he does admit that it can take a long time.

It takes at least four generations, and even that is not enough when people have a strong tribal identity that supersedes their residence du jour. Regardless, the reasoning of Thomas Aquinas is a powerful rebuke to the Churchians appealing to false teachings in the name of Christ.

Calling out the Pope

Although they stop short of calling him a heretic, a group of faithful Catholics are calling out the Holy Father and issuing “a filial correction” to the him.

A group of clergy and lay scholars from around the world have taken the very rare step of presenting Pope Francis with a formal filial correction, accusing him of propagating heresies concerning marriage, the moral life, and reception of the sacraments.

Entitled Correctio filialis de haeresibus propagatis, meaning ‘A Filial Correction Concerning the Propagation of Heresies,’ the 25 page letter was delivered to the Holy Father at his Santa Marta residence on Aug. 11.

The Pope has so far not responded to the initiative, whose 62 signatories include the German intellectual Martin Mosebach, former president of the Vatican Bank, Ettore Gotti Tedeschi, and the superior general of the Society of St. Pius X, Bishop Bernard Fellay (he learned of the document only after it had been delivered to the Pope and signed it on behalf of the Society).

The letter begins by saying that with “profound grief but moved by fidelity to our Lord Jesus Christ, by love for the Church and for the papacy, and by filial devotion toward yourself” the signatories feel “compelled” to take this action “on account of the propagation of heresies.”

They cite in particular Francis’ apostolic exhortation on marriage and the family, Amoris Laetitia, and “other words, deeds and omissions.”

They accuse the Pope of upholding seven heretical positions about “marriage, the moral life, and the reception of the sacraments” which, they say, has “caused these heretical opinions to spread in the Catholic Church.”

The clergy and scholars “respectfully insist” that Pope Francis condemn the heresies that he has directly or indirectly upheld, and that he teach the truth of the Catholic faith in its integrity.

The filial correction, the first to be made of a reigning Pontiff since Pope John XXII was admonished in 1333, is divided into three main parts.

In the first, the signatories say they have the “right and duty” to issue such a correction. They make clear the doctrine of papal infallibility has not been contradicted as the Pope has not promulgated heretical opinions as dogmatic teachings of the Church, but they maintain that Francis has “upheld and propagated heretical opinions by various direct and indirect means.”

The second part deals with the correction itself. Written in Latin, it lists the passages of Amoris Laetitia in which, they argue, the Pope insinuates or encourages heretical positions. They mention those who claim these texts can be interpreted in an orthodox way, but the correction lists examples of when it is clear “beyond reasonable doubt” that the Pope “wishes Catholics to interpret these passages in a way that is, in fact, heretical.” In particular, they say the Pope has advocated the belief that obedience to God’s moral law can be impossible or undesirable, and that Catholics should sometimes accept adultery as compatible with being a follower of Christ.

In the third part, the signatories highlight two causes of this crisis: modernism and the influence of Martin Luther. They argue that the embrace of modernism, which they define as the belief that God has not delivered definite truths to the Church which she must continue to teach in exactly the same sense until the end of time, means that faith and morals become “provisional and subject to revision.” Such thinking, they point out, was condemned by Pope St Pius X. Regarding Martin Luther, they show how some of the Pope’s ideas on marriage, divorce, forgiveness, and divine law correspond to those of the German Reformation monk, and draw attention to the “explicit and unprecedented praise” the Pope has given the 16th century heresiarch.

I don’t pay much attention to Catholic theology or politics, but I will say that the Church has survived worse popes and worse leaders, so I expect it will survive this one too. That being said, I think Catholics would be wise to purge their SJWs and throw out all of the changes since Vatican II. It’s been pretty much straight downhill since that pernicious council took place.

Mailvox: the New Puritans

BA muses on the observably religious character of the SJWs:

Is it atheism per se or is it a mindset that may or may not include atheism? Or perhaps the old time heretics didn’t quite have the nerve to go full bore atheist.  Specifically, I’m wondering if  the West’s, and in particular America’s, current political/cultural rift goes back to the Reformation and even earlier. Runciman discusses some on his Medieval Manichee.

 Adherents to the older Christian faiths accept and embrace the obligation of doing the right thing in both private and public life.  Live, stumble, sin, repent, pray, try through good works to be a better person because the final judgement is rendered at the end of life, so one had best be on the qui vive at all times.  One must also constantly examine  if what one is doing is right, and accept that all too often it will not be.

By contrast, for a certain kind of 16th and 17th century Protestant, grace, like perfect pitch, is a lucky attribute. One is born of the Elect or not, and nothing can change that.  For those with a guaranteed first class reservation to Heaven so long as they profess the faith, there is a whole lot of leeway in day to day life.  Better yet, there is a whole lot of self examination that one can dispense with.That sword of uncertainty simply does not hang over head.

 Which gets us to the modern secular True Believer.  If all is fore ordained and one’s place is secure (or non-existent, in the case of atheists), criticism (or destruction), the easier path, rather than creation, the harder, becomes the standard. Marching and emoting and punching Nazis is more fun than, say working the soup kitchen or helping building habitats for the poor or teaching the illiterate to read.*  Making errors (much less making up for errors) scarcely enters into the equation.

How  wonderful a faith is that?  No real effort involved, and if there are inconsistencies or temptations to act like a jerk, well, not really a problem because, you see – One is one of the Elect.   Too bad about the rest of you sinners.  Perhaps you should move down south with the rest of your heathen kind. Or just die.  And by the way, where’s my check?

Not surprisingly, for those few Elect who do create, the results are, shall we say, not sublime. And their jokes are terrible.

The roots for this mindset go deep and, no surprise, go deepest in states like Massachusetts. That it screws up the individual in small and society at large in any number of ways is obvious, but if one is a true believer, inconvenient facts are there to be ignored. They have to be. If acknowledged, they are shattering. I’ve seen it happen, as no doubt you have as well. Not pretty.  So rather than face up to failure, one must blame failure onto others.

Case in point – an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal a few days ago gave a whole litany of LBJ’s 1960’s Great Society acts and then observed that every single one of the problems they were meant to address had all gotten worse.  Mea Culpa?  Of course not.  The writer blamed Nixon’s 1970’s law and order policies. Can’t have been anything else.  It was a question of Elect and Non-Elect.  The writer’s solution was to get Republicans to join with Democrats and double down the policies of old.

There is only one answer to the ongoing question so often asked by the Right of the Left: are they evil or are they stupid?

The answer, of course, is “yes”. As I mentioned yesterday, all of the Left’s ideologies, from Marxism to Gramscian cultural marxism to feminism to atheism to multiculturalism to neo-liberal globalism are nothing more than the various skinsuits worn by the Neo-Babelists as suits them at the time. These diverse and incoherent ideologies are nothing more than rationalizations encouraging the adherent to condemn and attack Christendom on whatever grounds happens to appeal most to him.

And Neo-Babelism is more than a superset of useful ideologies, it is a religion, indeed, one could go so far as to say that it is the first religion.

The war against God

It’s good to see that even the cucks at National Review are not interested in adopting the New Atheists subsequent to their rejection and no-platforming by the Left:

Why must ardent secularists from the Islamic world like Ayaan Hirsi Ali — the type of people the Left looks to for inspiration in the history of Western secularism — be deemed bigots, while Sharia-supporting conspiracy theorists like Linda Sarsour are cherished? Why has criticizing Islam caused the New Atheists to cross a red line in the progressive imagination?

These positions make no sense if one thinks of the Left as seriously secular, convinced of the need to end the reign of superstition. But American liberals profess neither the passionate skepticism of Hume nor the honest, urgent atheism of Nietzsche. They prefer to embrace a shallow, culture-war atheism instead.

This culture-war atheism provides “evidence,” quick and easy, to support the proposition that America is split into two camps: the intelligent, sophisticated, urbane, righteous liberals and the idiotic, gullible, backward, bigoted conservatives. The former are atheists and the latter are believers, flattering one side and bludgeoning the other. In fact, it is this type of thinking that made progressives fall in love with the New Atheists in the first place.

New Atheism pleased the Left as long as it stuck to criticizing “God,” who was associated with the beliefs of President George W. Bush and his supporters. It was thus fun, rather than offensive, for Bill Maher to call “religion” ridiculous, because he was assumed to be talking about Christianity. Christopher Hitchens could call God a “dictator” and Heaven a “celestial North Korea,” and the Left would laugh. Berkeley students would not think to disinvite Richard Dawkins when he was saying “Bush and bin Laden are really on the same side: the side of faith and violence against the side of reason and discussion.”

Truth be told, New Atheism was always fundamentally unserious.

The Left rejects the New Atheists because it was never truly atheist or secular. It is merely anti-Christian and anti-Western. The Left embraces Islam because it presently serves as a more effective anti-Christian weapon than the atheism or secular humanism upon which it previously relied.

The heart of the Left is Neo-Babelism, which is inherently globalist and Satanic in nature. All of its various ideologies, from communism to feminism to neo-liberalism to progressivism, are nothing more than the skinsuits it wears in its endless war against God. But unlike the New Atheists, the Neo-Babelists are not warring against the idea of God, much less questioning His existence. They are actually at war with the Almighty Himself, and His son, Jesus Christ.

Expel your SJWs

Any organization that does not actively work to keep out SJWs will eventually be converged by them, be it a church or a corporation. The Z-Man understands this, as he summarizes the decline of the mainline Protestant denominations in the USA:

Young people tend not to be attracted to the faith, even if their parents regularly attend services. As people get older, have families and begin to sink roots, they get more involved in their faith and attend services regularly. That’s the trouble with the mainline Protestant religions. The young are not coming back once they start having families. That means their children are not raised in the faith. As a result, these churches are now in a death spiral.

The story is familiar to anyone who has been paying attention. These churches made the decision to chase the latest social fads in the 70’s and 80’s, hoping to make themselves more appealing to the young. The only thing they did was make themselves less attractive to people interested in being part of a traditional Christian sect. It was not just in the pews, but in the clergy as well. Those feeling the call found that the church in which they were raised was not interested in defending and maintaining the faith.

The result is the clergy slowly radicalized. First came the women and then the feminist women. Soon they invited in the homosexuals and the clergy started looking like the faculty of a liberal arts college. That’s when the pews started to empty out. Why bother going to church, when you can get the same liberal lecture from television? That’s what started the decline in church attendance. Instead of offering a shelter from the storm, they decided to chase an over-served market – radical Progressives.

Talking to my friend, he tells me that there are elements within the Episcopal Church that know what must be done to save the church. The trouble is they are outgunned and out maneuvered by the radicals. That’s the thing. The conservatives make it a priority to serve the church and serve God, while the radicals are always scheming to advance the radical agenda. The conservatives are constantly outmaneuvered because they are not playing the political games. They end up getting marginalized, despite having numbers….

It’s another reminder that Progressives must be treated like rage zombies or highly contagious disease carriers. Once you let one into your organization, it will set about bringing in more of its kind.

SJWs always converge. That is their purpose. That is their jihad. People often ask me, “what can I do?” The answer is straightforward: actively work to deconverge every organization to which you belong. If you can’t, then leave it and find another one. And if you can’t find another one, create it yourself.