How the Left Hides its Dominance

Leftism rules. That’s obvious to anyone who can think accurately. But the Left thinks the Right rules. And so do many normies. Why can’t some people see the obvious?

[I call our enemies “the Left.” Yes, traditional American politics is dead; we are in uncharted waters. But supporting unlimited immigration, divorce and abortion, for example, is leftist by definition. Our enemies are leftistish, whatever else they are.]

The following goes a long way toward explaining the conundrum. In it, “racist” is a stand-in for anyone who shows any kind of opposition to the current System:

*

In America, it’s not formally illegal to be a racist. But the dominant culture defines racists to be bad people so racists are always subject to punishment.

Do Not Attack a Soldier When He’s in the Middle of Attacking Your Enemy, Or Richard Dawkins Publicly Praises Christianity

There was a much-talked-about recent public declaration by Richard Dawkins that he considers himself to be a cultural Christian, that he likes living in a culturally Christian (i.e., Christian) country, that “if we substituted any alternative religion, that would be truly dreadful,” that Christianity is a “fundamentally decent religion,” and the Islam that surrounds him in England is not.

It generated a lot of reaction, but I have not heard anyone point out the most important thing. Dawkins said publicly that Christianity is “fundamentally decent” and he greatly prefers it to Islam. He publicly supported our side. Richard Dawkins, of all people, said things that are dangerous to say in public but which support our side.

“Pascal’s Wager, 21st Century Edition”

(HT Patriactionary.)

Someone calling himself Bleppstein von Sama says

Pascal’s Wager for the 21^st century:

God may or may not be real, but the other side is so passionate, so committed to worshiping Satan, evil, homosexuality and corrupting children that even if god wasn’t real, believing in him to fend these demons off is preferable.

Yep. The other way doesn’t work. So the Christian way is, at minimum, preferable.

This is evidence for God rather than a full proof, but it’s strong evidence for the truth. Sooner or later, you must commit yourself to that to which the evidence leads.

This is an argument presuppositional in spirit. But you can just call it not being a dumba**.

The Grammar of Hate

When the word “hate” has a direct object, it has its traditional meaning. In the sentence “I hate broccoli,” hate’s direct object is broccoli. That’s what I (hypothetically) hate.

But in the sentence “We’re fighting hate,” hate has no direct object. What is hated is not specified.

Whenever the word “hate” is employed with no direct object it means sane people and sane ideas. It is reality and the people who acknowledge it. The “hate” that the Left hates is, at root, reality.

This is the modern-day grammar of hate.

An Informal Introduction to Presuppositional Apologetics

Introduction to the Introduction

This is a lightly-edited version of a talk I gave to my Christian men’s group. I was asked to present a topic of my choosing and I chose to try to refine my understanding of Christian apologetics.

Dealing with the other person’s faulty presuppositions is not only important in Christian evangelism. The present world crisis is at root a matter of good presuppositions overthrown and no good ones put in their place.

Most people feel unmoored, because they are. To discover how to fix things, we must first know how to identify faulty Systems. A faulty System is recognized primarily by the evident fact that it doesn’t work. People are emotionally attached to a bad system when it is the only one they know, but freedom begins when people start to acknowledge that their System doesn’t work. Only then might they be able to hear about another, better System.

The Talk

“Apologetics” means giving reasons why Christianity is true. It means using facts and logic to show that Christianity is true.  It does not mean apologizing!

The word apologetics comes from the Greek apologia, which means giving a verbal and intellectual defense. Giving reasons. In ancient Greece, when a defendant was on trial he gave an apologia to prove his innocence.

In apologetics, the first person you must convince is yourself. Apologetics ministers first to the believer. We must preach the Gospel to ourselves daily; we must also remind ourselves that Christianity is true.

Apologetics is often not needed when we witness to unbelievers. We begin with Scripture, by delivering the Good News of salvation in Jesus Christ:

So faith comes from hearing, and hearing by the word of Christ.  [Romans 10:17]

For the word of God is living and active and sharper than any two-edged sword, and piercing as far as the division of soul and spirit, of both joints and marrow, and able to judge the thoughts and intentions of the heart. [Hebrews 4:12]

Showing people the Gospel message from the Word of God is often enough to produce faith.

More About That Reconquista Thing…

Original context here.  More discussion here.

Ackerman’s plan was summarized by me as strengthening biblically-faithful congregations, and strengthening and then reconquering moderate (i.e, wavering) congregations, all within the most infamous of the mostly-far-left mainline Protestant denominations. Eventually, if all goes well, we can retake entire denominations because liberal Christianity cannot sustain itself.

(By “we,” I mean Christians who are faithful to the message of Christ and the Apostles. I’m not calling on anyone here to join the Reconquista.)

That’s the key point. Liberal “Christianity” cannot sustain itself. It’s weaker than it looks.

For me, the most important thing about Ackerman’s plan is its spirit. Take the fight to the enemy in one of his strongholds.

This might require a little guile every now and then but not, it seems to me, much more that is required for normal life. To be a useful reconquistador requires one to be forthright in the faith just about all the time. You might have to be more discrete when under the eye of a liberal bishop, but even so, you cannot hide what you are doing and still be useful.

“Unite the Right:” A Conceptually Simple Framework Based on First Stopping the Destruction

By “The Right” I mean those who are relatively sane, moral, and devoted to construction. The Left consists of those who are insane, immoral, and devoted to destruction.

This gives the Left a structural advantage. Destruction is conceptually simple. Just take away what exists and replace it with something new and untried (and therefore suboptimal), or with nothing. Disgruntled people naturally agree that the existing order is bad; from there it’s a small step to desiring destruction. It’s easy to rally the legion of the disgruntled with a campaign of destruction. The Left is more cohesive than the Right because it’s easier to organize a lynch mob than a construction crew.

While sane people agree that the existing leftist order is bad, they cannot agree on what should replace it. The Right lacks a unifying principle.

Ultimately social renewal will require a specific blueprint. But we can do a lot of good right now without any blueprint by devoting ourselves to stopping the destruction. And it’s done by destroying or at least blocking the institutions and laws that carry out the destruction.

Christian Reconquista: Retaking the Mainline Denominations

In The Secret to Retaking American Culture, Richard Ackerman (also known as Redeemed Zoomer) lays out a plan for real Christians to retake the mainline Protestant denominations from the liberals. He argues that reconquest is both feasible and beneficial.

It’s feasible because liberal congregations cannot sustain themselves and are necessarily dying out. And it’s beneficial, Ackerman argues, because the mainline Protestant denominations still have valuable resources that could be redirected from their current destructive uses to directions beneficial to individuals and societies.

The Left has a strategy we can copy:

While conservative Christians have focused on evangelizing individuals, generally those with less cultural influence, the Left has successfully evangelized the centers of culture and exerted top-down influence.

The Left desired to conquer the mainline denominations because

they know …that religion was originally at the heart of the culture and its major institutions. Every Western culture was built on a certain institutional Church… Therefore, Leftists have been very intentional in hijacking the most culturally important churches in every Western nation and replacing them with their own ideology.

The Esthetic Damnation of America

When sane people point out that in the past America was relatively clean, safe, orderly, and strong, leftists always say that those things don’t matter. Because in the past America was not Diverse, Inclusive and Equitable.

To the Left, America’s past virtues are irrelevant because she was not DIE.

This is mainly an esthetic judgment. To the Left, America of the past was ugly because of “inequality;” now she is beautiful because of diversity, equity and inclusion. Or at least she is more beautiful, and becoming even more so.

Never mind the sh!tshow. Never mind what your lyin’ eyes tell you. Even if they were to admit it’s caused by the DIE (and they never admit it), they would say it’s a trivial price to pay for the beauty of Diversity.

Many leftists like the sh!tshow. But many don’t. These relatively normal leftists ignore the disorder and concentrate on the beauty of DIE. For them, DIE covers a multitude of sins.

Christian Nationalism Also Means Working for a Political Order Which Will Protect Christianity

There is talk about Christian Nationalism. Its opponents don’t define it. They denounce it.

The essence of nationalism is concern for the well-being of your people coupled with the desire to use sociopolitical means to help them. Nationalism springs from the desire to help your people.

A nation is a group of people having common ancestry and a common language, religion and way of life. A nation always has diversity, and how much diversity there must be before a group of people once viewed as a nation no longer has the solidarity to be a nation in the proper sense is not a precise matter. But the ideal provides us with the correct understanding of the term.

Nationalism is always controversial because of its political element. Fondness for your people but with no political action is not nationalism. Some say that the idea of nationalism is incoherent because, for example, 19^th Century European nationalism was sometimes integrative (Italy, Germany) and sometimes separatist (Norway, Poland) But there’s nothing incoherent here. Sometimes the well-being of your people is served by integration, sometimes by separation.

Some people view Christian Nationalism as nationalism in the ordinary sense (the desire to help your nation) which is informed by Christian principles. For example, here.

That sounds reasonable, but I present an alternate approach. One can view Christians as resembling a nation, despite Christendom’s diversity of tribe and tongue.  Christian nationalism can then be understood as rooted in a concern for the well-being of your fellow Christians coupled with the desire to do something sociopolitical which will bless them. It is the desire to work out social and political arrangements which help Christians.