The Coming Christian Persecution

In third world countries, the persecution of Christians takes for form of militia attacks and mass killings, mass kidnappings and rape of Christian women, and the destruction of churches. In Europe it is somewhat more subtle: there are still the rape of large numbers of white girls and women and widespread vandalism and desecration of churches which largely go unpunished, making the governments complicit. But what we are seeing more and more in the supposedly free West bloc are increasingly overt government persecution of Christians through "hate speech" laws intended to silence Christians on certain issues. 

    For instance, the New York Post reports that "Canada hate speech bill could be ‘weaponized,’ turned against people of faith, Andrew Lawton warns."  

    A Canadian hate speech bill is drawing backlash from critics who warn it could chill religious speech and expose some people to prosecution for quoting the Bible.

    Bill C-9, the Combatting Hate Act, introduced by Canadian Liberal Justice Minister Sean Fraser, passed the House of Commons on March 25 and now heads to the Senate.

    The measure would expand Canada’s hate speech laws, create a new hate-crime offense, and add penalties for intimidating or blocking people from accessing houses of worship, cultural spaces, schools, senior residences, and cemeteries.

    The sharpest criticism of the bill focuses on its repeal of a long-standing defense for religious speech in some criminal hate speech cases.

    Christian and Muslim groups say the change could chill sermons, religious debate, and other faith-based expression, while the Liberal government and some Jewish advocacy groups say the bill is aimed at combating antisemitism, not criminalizing religion.    

[snip]

    Lawton said the bill’s safeguards are not enough, warning that Liberal officials have already signaled that people could be prosecuted for quoting certain passages from the Bible.

    “It’s not for the government to decide which religious beliefs are legitimate or not,” he added. “People of faith can and should debate this. But it’s incredibly concerning when a Liberal cabinet minister says that certain verses of Scripture are so inherently hateful that prosecutors should be able to press charges against those who quote them.”

    During a House justice committee hearing last October, Liberal Party MP Marc Miller, Minister of Canadian Identity and Culture, suggested certain passages from the Bible were inherently hateful toward homosexuals and questioned the Criminal Code’s initial carve out for religious statements made in “good faith.”

    “In Leviticus, Deuteronomy, and Romans, there are passages with clear hatred towards, for example, homosexuals,” Miller said, according to the hearing transcript. “I don’t understand how the concept of good faith could be invoked if someone were literally invoking a passage from, in this case, the Bible, though there are other religious texts that say the same thing. How do we somehow constitute this as being said in good faith? Clearly, there are situations in these texts where statements are hateful. They should not be used to invoke … or be a defense.” 

So you can believe that certain behaviors are immoral, but you just can't say it, preach it, or teach it. So what then? Underground churches? 

    This is how government sponsored persecution of Christians will begin and spread throughout the West. And it will be sold on the grounds of prohibiting antisemitism and protecting the "rights" of the LGBTQ. As the old saying goes, the road to hell is paved with good intentions. 

New Zealand Trained Its Military To Take Out Christians

From Kurt Mahlburg on X: 

    The New Zealand Defence Force spent 2025 training soldiers to take out a fictional Christian terrorist group — on a map of their own country.

    None of NZ's 23 listed terrorist orgs are Christian.

    They say no offence was intended.    

The Centrist has more details: 

    Training materials circulating online indicate that the New Zealand Defence Force (NZDF) recently conducted a training exercise using a fictional internal security scenario set in a fictional country referred to as “DRM,” which closely resembles New Zealand’s South Island. 

    According to the documents discussed by women’s and girls’ rights advocate Penny Marie, the exercise was conducted at Burnham Military Camp and was in use within the past several weeks. 

    The material appears to form part of standard military planning training, including operational orders at company and platoon level.

    The scenario describes political instability following a referendum and constitutional change, including secession, the formation of an interim government, and subsequent civil unrest involving multiple armed factions.

    One of the armed groups described in the fictional scenario is called the Visayan People’s Front (VPF). Penny Marie states that the documents characterise the VPF as having emerged from Christian communities opposing Islamisation within the fictional state. 

    Within the scenario, the group is described as seeking the creation of a separate Christian state, being hostile toward a Muslim immigrant community, engaging in activities such as protests, intimidation, weapons smuggling, and attacks on security forces, and attempting to influence indigenous populations within the scenario. 

 The exercise also includes Islamic extremist groups, but the issue is "[p]ublicly available information shows that New Zealand currently lists 23 designated terrorist entities, none of which are Christian organisations," so why did they make the Christians the bad guys?

Canada Mulls Including Religious Speech As "Hate" Speech

Reclaim the Net reports that "[m]embers of the House of Commons Justice and Human Rights Committee voted on December 9 to delete a longstanding clause in the Criminal Code that shields religious discussion made in good faith from prosecution." At issue is "whether the change to Section 319(3)(b) opens the door to criminal proceedings against clergy or believers discussing moral or scriptural teachings." 

As reported by The Catholic Register, Justice Minister and Attorney General Sean Fraser alleged that the measure poses no threat to religious freedom. “The amendment that the Bloc is proposing will … in no way, shape or form prevents a religious leader from reading their religious texts,” Fraser said. “It will not criminalize faith.”  

So it won't prevent a religious leader from reading from their religious texts. But what about someone else other than a religious leader? What about discussing that religious text or what it means in modern parlance? Will that religious leader be able to read it in public? Can anyone else? Can they read it out loud? When they say it won't criminalize faith, they are lying. 

    And say they are correct. So what? It isn't illegal for baker to refuse to bake items for gay weddings, but that hasn't stopped the lawsuits and prosecutions. Sometimes the process is the punishment. "Religious and civil rights organizations say the removal of Section 319(3)(b) would leave clergy and lay believers vulnerable to politically motivated complaints," the article points out. That is probably the point.  

Minneapolis Shooter Identified--Another Leftist Killing Christians

Earlier today, Catholic school children were mercilessly shot down as they attended mass at the Annunciation Catholic Church in Minneapolis. Reports indicate that two children, 8 and 10 years old, were killed and 14 more children and 3 adults were injured. "Police said at least two of the church doors appeared to have been blocked by two by fours before the shooting, suggesting the gunman wanted to trap the people inside."

    The shooter has been identified as a transgender male (i.e., a guy pretending to be a girl) calling himself Robin Westman (previously going under the name Robert). According to news sources, Westman shot through stained glass windows at the children sitting on the pews inside Annunciation Catholic School's church on Wednesday morning, before turning the gun on himself. "It has since emerged that her [sic] mother was an employee at the school before she retired in 2021," the article adds. 

    Westman also left a 20-minute video manifesto and a clip posted to YouTube (the YouTube video has been taken down, but it is still available here). 

    The video appeared to show a drawing of a church. It then showed someone stabbing the drawing repeatedly as he quietly says 'I'm going to kill myself.'

    Other clips posted to the YouTube account show gun parts and semi-automatic rifle and a shotgun. The gun parts had the names of other mass shooters written on them.

    One of the parts has a message on it aimed at President Donald Trump, calling for him to be killed. 

And "[o]ther phrases written on the magazines included 'for the children' and 'where is you God?'" The latter article also relates:

    Seven people were shot, one fatally, in a separate mass shooting near a Catholic high school in south Minneapolis yesterday reported Kare11.

    Police said the suspect, who escaped in a vehicle and does not appear to have been arrested since, fired around 30 rounds from a high-velocity .223 rifle.

    Authorities have not confirmed any connection between the shootings. 

Israel Attacking Christians

From Revolver News: "Priest warns Israeli settlers are brutally attacking Christians in Jesus’ backyard…"

    Taybeh is an all Christian village of about 1,500 in the West Bank. It is home to the famous Taybeh Brewery.

    Armed Jewish “Settlers” rampaged through the village throwing Molotov cocktails at cars and homes.

    IDF allegedly supported the terrorists and shot multiple Christians.

This attack is just one of many on the Taybeh. Independent Catholic News, in its article, "Holy Land: Israeli settlers attack Christian village - again," relates:

    The Palestinian Christian community in the West Bank has suffered increased attacks by Israel settlers in recent months.

    On 26 June, more than a hundred illegal Israeli settlers attacked several homes in the ancient Christian village of Taybeh. They also lit a fire at the entrance to the village, then rampaged through the neighbouring village of Kafr Malik destroying several homes and vehicles and killing three people. They put up large billboards that read: "There is no future for you here.'

And from another news story:

    In a statement, the Israeli Defense Forces said dozens of Israeli civilians set fire to property in Kafr Malik, and after a confrontation between the Israelis and Palestinian developed including “mutual rock-hurling,” the IDF and Israeli police were dispatched to the scene.

    The statement said several people whom the IDF termed “terrorists” from within the village fired toward the forces who returned fire, with fatalities reported. Five Israeli suspects were apprehended and transferred to the Israeli Police for further processing, IDF said.

This is an effective method of dispossession: make life untenable for the people already living there, use non-government forces to attack them, and then when the inhabitants defend themselves, send in government forces to shoot and arrest the inhabitants under the pretext of "keeping the peace".   

A Glimpse At The Strategy That Will Be Employed Against Christians

Time Magazine has published an article, "How We Can Confront the Myths of January 6 and Intensifying Christian Nationalism" by Jared Stacy and Andrew Whitehead which suggests the strategy that will be used to persecute Christians in the United States. 

    The "myths" portion of the article is disingenuous, arguing that the release of more information concerning the events of January 6, 2021, including more of the surveillance tapes, will reinforce the "myths" held by deplorables of what happened because, I guess, it will dispute the "official truth". Presumably the recent revelation that more than 200 FBI agents (aka, agent provocateurs) participated will also perpetuate "myths" of what really happened on January 6. 

    But the more disturbing part is how Stacy and Whitehead paint broad swaths of practicing Christians in the United States as potential insurrectionists or terrorists. They write, for instance:

Recent survey data of the American public highlights the intensification of key elements associated with Christian nationalism—a political theology that idealizes and advocates for a fusion of a particular expression of Christianity with American civic life. Specifically, studies find Americans who embrace Christian nationalism post-January 6 support the use of political violence in order to “save our country,” support political leaders who are willing to “break some rules if that’s what it takes to set things right,” support for the false claim that the 2020 election was “rigged,” and a decreasing desire to prosecute rioters at the Capitol on January 6th.

They expound on this later in the article:

    All Americans, both Christian and non-Christian alike, saw the “Jesus Saves” signs and crosses at the Capitol. And yet, in the aftermath of January 6, many Christians in America opted to distance themselves from this obvious Christian influence in various ways. But no sanitizing of January 6 can erase a simple, unavoidable fact: people were praying. They prayed while the spectacle of violence raged. Those prayers and the spectacle must be held together. And it should draw attentive reflection and contrition from Christians, not denial dressed up in calculated, political expediency.

    Only contrition from Christians over January 6 will lead us to resist retribution as a political cause. As practicing Christians, one of us an ethicist and the other a sociologist, we don’t fault our fellow non-Christian Americans who are skeptical of a Christian public presence, who might tend to reject conversations about what Christians can offer American society. We believe such skepticism is often valid. It comes from observing in Christians a political will to dominate, rather than a commitment to cultivate a world where all people can flourish and where the rights of each person to engage with the political system are defended.

    The renewal of Christian civic presence in a pluralistic society begins with a reckoning. One where Christians stop confusing the power to crucify with the power of the Crucified One. This power is what David Bentley Hart calls the “anarchy of charity” — the opposite of domination. To our fellow Christians in America, we cannot sanitize or mythologize January 6. These myths do nothing but protect the power of a fast-regrouping Christian civic machine looking to install a certain vision of Christian morality through coercive force. We cannot be a reconciling presence championing the cause of retribution.

    But the incentive to forget an event like January 6 always arises from the will to power. For every “remembering” in American history there is also a “forgetting,” for every Fort Sumter, Pearl Harbor, and 9/11, there is the Stono rebellion or Osage murders. The Lost Cause myth sustained the cultural white supremacy of Southern States in the wake of their defeat in the Civil War. It aided in the construction of Jim Crow.

    The Christian Nationalist myth of January 6 leads us down similar paths, towards more violence and retribution, in denial of the Jesus some Americans claim to follow. These myths, today, mask the intensifying of Christian Nationalist ideology, threatening our political system, and damaging a civil sphere that we hope can yet become a common ground. Reckoning with and resisting these myths through accountable politics and a more responsible Christian presence are part of the way forward.

This wordy explanation basically boils down to these points:

1. "Christian Nationalists" are bad people because: (a) are not "real" Christians, (b) are a threat to "Our Democracy", and (c) will use the coercive power of the state to enforce their mores and/or ideology; and,
2.  To be a "real" Christian you must denounce the "Christian Nationalists". 

Stacy and Whitehead do not really explain what is a "Christian Nationalist" or "Christian Nationalism" (a topic that I will explore in a later article). The vagueness is deliberate. Their intent is not to educate but to scare the audience generally and control Christian readers in particular. "Christian Nationalist" is a malleable term intended to describe those Christians that Stacy and Whitehead view as political opponents and to be used as a stick to separate "true" Christians from "Christian Nationalists" in order to reduce the power of their political opponents. And, much like the Left's favorite term "fascists", it is intended to vague and malleable so that it can continue to be used as their political opponents shift, change, as it can be expanded to include groups as needed. There is a reason that every Republican president over the past five decades has been described as a "Hitler" by Democrats.

    The only clear part of the definition is that it includes Christians (although even this might be less clear than you think) which tells us that ultimately the goal is to remove Christians completely from the public sphere. At a minimum, the authors seem to espouse shaming Christians into believing that their Christian beliefs should not inform how they vote or what policies they support. But it is easy (because we have seen this before in other countries and under other regimes) to imagine this ultimately leading to Christianity being driven underground and Christians imprisoned or killed. 

    Frankly, this anti-Christian rhetoric--and it is not limited to Stacy and Whitehead--reminds me of the talk of civil war. John Wilder, in his most recent Civil War 2.0 Weather Report, remarks:

    An article I read decades ago mentioned that couples who got divorced talked about one thing that couples who stayed married didn’t talk about:  divorce.  Civil War 2.0 is rapidly rising in our mental consciousness.

    Barack Obama recently produced a movie on Netflix® that was about a civil war.  Another one is coming out this spring.  It’s showing up in polls, and it’s in our popular culture.

    Just like couples heading for divorce talk about divorce, a people headed for civil war will talk about civil war.

And a country that is headed for religious persecution of Christians talks about Christians as enemies of the state, the people, or democracy.

The New Armenian Genocide

While the Western media is wringing its hands over the Jewish-Palestine war, it is ignoring the persecution and death of Christians in Armenia. Notwithstanding the the Jewish left bleating about being targeted by their former allies, the goal of the left is and has always been the destruction of Christians.

VIDEO: "100K Christians Forcibly Starved, Exiled From Homeland"

Facts Matter with Roman Balmakov (16 min.)

Watson: "The FBI is Now Investigating ‘It’s Okay to be White’ Posters"

Paul Joseph Watson reports that the FBI has been called in to investigate flyers posted around the campus of Western Connecticut State University. University president, John Clark, characterized the flyers as a "hateful attack."

     “Have no doubt that we are treating this as an attack on our university community and making every effort to see that those responsible are caught and properly punished,” Clark wrote in a letter. “I am fully committed to the absolutely necessary goal this does not happen again. We must be ever vigilant to protect our university against these hateful attacks.”

      Clark added that if any student was found to be responsible for posting the flyers, they would be expelled as well as hit with possible “criminal actions.”

The flyers read: "It’s Okay to be White." Clark wants to make sure that you know that it is NOT okay.

They Really Do Hate You: Another Round of Opposition to "It's Okay To Be White"

No one is concerned about this poster being defaced with a call for white genocide (Source)

If you want to drive Leftists into paroxysms of rage, post signs refuting their belief that white people are the source of all evil in the world:

• "Racist 'It's Okay To Be White' flyers are posted across East Tennessee State University campus - including at a memorial for the school's first black students"--Daily Mail. 

• "‘It’s OK to be white’ banner hanging over Mass. Pike sparks outrage"--WHDH 7News.

As the author of this op-ed at The State News writes, "[t]his seemingly simple statement is aggressive and it’s false, it’s not okay to be white."

Those Who Vomit Up The Teachings Of The Left

There is a short colloquy in the movie Dragonheart that has stuck with me over the years. In the movie, Bowen is a knight that lives and breaths the code chivalry; and Einon is a prince, a former pupil of Bowen, who has become evil. In a fight between the two, Bowen tries to remind Einon of the noble code he had been taught.

Einon: Lay down, Bowen! You're the sad remains of dead systems and dead beliefs!
Bowen: They were your beliefs!
Einon: Never! Never mine!
Bowen: [heartbroken] But... you spoke the words...you spoke them from your heart!
Einon: I vomited them up because I couldn't stomach them! Because I knew it was what you wanted to hear!
Bowen: Lies! Liar! I taught you!
Einon: You taught me to fight, that's all! I took what I needed from you. You taught me to fight! [stabs Bowen in the shoulder, disarming him] You taught me well.

I think of Einon's words whenever I hear or read about the Alt-Right: that the Alt-Right is the result of Leftists and the Cuckservatives forcing a non-reality down the throat of the younger generations, and these younger generations have vomiting it up, but they don't believe it.

     I've written before of the insidious influence presented by the Cultural Marxists and the Frankfort School of moral relativism. In a June 2018 post, I noted that in the past the Cultural Marxists had relied on our passivity and goodness--essentially a "live and let live" attitude--to advance their cause.

But today, with the march through the institutions complete, we are seeing a shift from appealing to our goodness and generosity, to threatening us should we speak out. Thus we see social justice warriors attempt to shame us into acquiescence and passivity. Don't speak up, or you will be labeled a bigot, racist, deplorable, or some other label. 

I concluded:

      The left has mostly won: abortion is firmly the law of the land, two-parent families and stable marriages are so far in the past that most of us cannot remember when it was the norm, Christianity has been driven from the public square and most Christian religions are now in the process of self-destructing in order to avoid the "sin" of offending a special snowflake or victim group. The left can shame the right all it wants, but the opposite is denied. The only thing left for the cultural Marxist is to destroy "whiteness"--the vestiges of Western civilization and the hold-outs among Christians. And to ensure continued passivity, we that are of European descent are told we are guilty of some irredeemable sin, and that we just need to shut up and listen ... and confess our guilt.

       The first step in this is to reject the idea of white guilt. There is no such thing. One of the basic Biblical teachings is that the child is not answerable for the sins of the parents. So, even if Western civilization was not the second best thing to have ever arisen (Christianity being the first), there is still no need for guilt, apology or reparations. SJW's always lie, as Vox Day has written, and its time to stop passively accepting their lies, but actively reject it and defend rightness.

    Philip Carl Salzman, writing at Minding the Campus, asks the question, "Where Does the Impulse to Vilify America and the West Come From?" He notes that it seems to go back "to the idea of 'cultural relativism,' first articulated in the 1930s by foundational anthropologist Franz Boas and his student Ruth Benedict. Instead of judging other cultures in terms of one’s own values, the anthropologist should suspend his or her own value perspective in order to understand the world in terms of the culture studied." It didn't stop there:

But the idea of cultural relativism did not remain static. Rather, it was taken up and expanded to mean moral relativism, in which someone from one culture cannot make a valid moral judgment about someone or a culture with a different morality. In 1946, the American Anthropological Association went so far as to reject the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights on the grounds that it reflected Western values and was thus ethnocentric. Then relativity was expanded to epistemological relativity, which means that a way of knowing in one culture is not more valid than a different way of knowing in another culture. Thus, for example, science is deemed to have no more validity than individual subjectivity, or prophets, or witchcraft doctors, or chicken oracles. Cultural relativism was a major step in undermining our cultural basis for judgment

     A second source, according to Salzman, was feminism. He explains:

     The Women’s Movement of the 1960s, consequent to the arrival of the birth control pill, modestly strove for equality for females. ... But in less than a decade, the Women’s Movement became second-wave Feminism. Along with a change in label came a change in orientation, from striving for a universal value to partisanship on behalf of females vis a vis males. Quickly that feminist partisanship became female supremacism and a war against men. ... Men were characterized not as supportive fathers, brothers, husbands, and sons, employers, and mentors, and fellow citizens, but as insensitive, brutal, toxic, and evil. The most recent slogans of feminism are “men are trash,” now set to music, and “kill all men,” also set to music.

More importantly, for our discussion here was the rise of a "feminist ideology":

... Feminist ideology generated feminist strategies, which included special consideration and benefits for females. For example, women were to be given preferences in college and university admissions, in employment, and in government, as well as disputes over child custody. Feminist law professors championed laws benefitting females, at the expense of males, such as redefining both undesired advances and violent rape as “sexual assault.” Feminists argued that any consensual sexual congress that a female regretted was rape. Males, as always, hoping to curry favor with females, supported or remained silent about the feminist attacks on equality and fairness.

      The feminist view of American culture ignored its basic values of freedom, equality, and democracy, claiming that American culture was a “rape culture.” Nor was American society deemed to be one of free citizens enjoying equality of opportunity to gain standing and prosperity. Rather, feminists adopted the Marxist model of society featuring a hierarchy of classes in which the higher class exploits and oppresses the lower classes. Feminists exchanged the Marxist economic classes with sex classes, the male patriarchy oppressing the subordinate females, discriminating against females at every opportunity. The alleged sexist American society was thus characterized as fundamentally unjust and corrupt, and salvageable only through the overthrow of the patriarchy and its replacement by feminist supremacy. As females make up half of all Americans and half of all voters, a movement claiming to represent all women could not be ignored, and, as we have seen, could not be resisted.

 According to Salzman, this same ideology was adopted by other interest groups:

      The Marxist feminist model of American culture and society was quickly adopted by minorities aiming to improve their positions by claiming victimhood. African American activists replaced the feminists’ claims of sexism with racism, and patriarchy with white supremacism. ...

      The campaign of homosexuals, including gays, lesbians, bisexuals, and other varieties, for acceptance and equal legal status framed American culture as heteronormative, and bigoted against LGB++ individuals. It, too, adopted the Marxist model, with heteronormative oppressors and LGB++ victims. Trans activists claim to be victims of oppression by the biologically literate, and demand that they could be whatever sex they wanted to be, and that this become sanctioned by law.

Native American and [especially] Canadian First Nations activists claim to be victims of non-natives. ...

      All of these minorities claim discrimination against them because of their origin or characteristics and identity. As proof, they point to “underrepresentation” in relation to their percentage of the population. Their argument is that in every field or organization, they should be represented at least in the same percentage as their percentage in the general population. The cover label for this demand is “diversity and inclusion.” The justification is labeled “social justice.”

     These claims reinforce the Marxist identity politics vision of America as a bigoted, sexist, racist, oppressive society run by evil white male supremacists. The white majority is thus regarded as tainted, and the rights of individual members of the white majority are disregarded in favor of benefits for the “underrepresented.”

* * * 

     While feminist and minority claims have not been ignored, because equality is a central value of American culture, feminists and minority activists have greatly exaggerated their victimhood and the evil oppression by men and by the white majority. Partisan activists and their supporters strive to gain power for their group, as well as power and status for themselves. Those on the political left see the campaign for “social justice” as a path to greater government centralization and power. The call for “social justice” is often joined by a condemnation of capitalism and a plea for socialism. The left’s tendency for totalitarianism is seen in the increased control of thought and speech, for example, in universities’ “diversity and inclusion” apparatus, including “bias detection” committees and re-education committees, a la Communist China.

       The great success of “woke social justice” ideology can be attributed in part to the capture of America’s education system by grievance partisanship. From the grievance fields of women’s studies, black studies, indigenous studies, Chicano studies, etc., “woke” ideology and virtue signaling spread rapidly to anthropology, sociology, political science, English, and other “humanistic” disciplines, social work, and education. From radical “social justice education faculties, “woke” feminist, anti-American teachers spread across the land to shape the minds of America’s children. But no one was quicker to adopt grievance “social justice” than university administrators, who have hired thousands of “diversity and inclusion officers,” including at the highest levels of administration for salaries up to half a million dollars a year, to police thoughts and speech among students and faculty. A sideline is enforcing Obama administration Title IX demands that they persecute male students that any female complains about. With their “social justice” police force in place, administrators have gone on to establish racial segregation in housing, eating facilities, and university salaries, and well as to admit, fund, hire and promote on the basis of sex, gender, race, and ethnicity. Every American criterion of merit, universal values, democracy, and due process has been thrown out by just about every university administration.

       Thus, in order to advance partisan interests, feminist and minority activists have distorted facts of history and sociology to portray America as a wicked and evil country. At the same time, educationalists have striven to divide Americans according to sex, race, sexual preference, and ethnicity, while canceling the rights of members of the American majority.

But even as the Ctr-Left more tightly squeezes its fist, the more dissenters are squeezed out between its fingers, and this is apparent in the phenomena--and, perhaps, new paradigm--sometimes termed the "Alt-Right."

    The Alt-Right has been demonized by the Left as "racists" and "bigots" because they recognize it as a legitimate counter-culture force, and want to place it beyond the pall so that it won't be the subject of legitimate study or interest. But the Left's efforts have only had mixed success because, as a cultural phenomena, there is no specific leader or certain set of beliefs. I have referred to it previously as "evidence based politics" because of the general Alt-Right belief in "truth" as obtained by rigorous scientific evidence and/or past experience. The latter characteristic is what casts the Alt-Right as a form of conservatism, although it has nothing to do with the modern Conservatism Inc. of Rockefeller or Buckley.

    One of the first serious attempts to understand the Alt-Right was Allum Bokhari's and Milo Yiannopoulos's article, "An Establishment Conservative’s Guide To The Alt-Right." The pair dismissed the connection to Neo-Nazism, noting that one of the characteristics of the Alt-Right was its intellectualism: "The alternative right are a much smarter group of people — which perhaps suggests why the Left hates them so much. They’re dangerously bright."

The origins of the alternative right can be found in thinkers as diverse as Oswald Spengler, H.L Mencken, Julius Evola, Sam Francis, and the paleoconservative movement that rallied around the presidential campaigns of Pat Buchanan. The French New Right also serve as a source of inspiration for many leaders of the alt-right.

But, perhaps not unsurprisingly, the Alt-Right is also associated with the "[t]he so-called online 'manosphere,' the nemeses of left-wing feminism," and Red-Pilled philosophy. But Yiannopoulos was demonized and demonitized (the same thing in these days of social media), and since then, no serious attempt by the broader media to objectively report on the Alt-Right has been attempted. Until recently, that is.

    In August 2019, The Claremont Review of Books published an article by Michael Anton with the title, "ARE THE KIDS AL(T)RIGHT?". Anton's focus was the book, Bronze Age Mindset ("BAM") by an author calling him or herself “Bronze Age Pervert” ("BAP"). As Anton observes:

Self-published in June 2018, BAM quickly cracked the top 150 on Amazon—not, mind you, in some category within Amazon but on the site as a whole. This for a book with no publisher and no publicist, whose author is not even known. 

Anton gives a lengthy review of the book which I won't repeat or even attempt to summarize here. I would recommend that you read the review. But some of his concluding thoughts are worth repeating:

      The reason this book is important is because it speaks directly to a youthful dissatisfaction (especially among white males) with equality as propagandized and imposed in our day: a hectoring, vindictive, resentful, levelling, hypocritical equality that punishes excellence and publicly denies all difference while at the same time elevating and enriching a decadent, incompetent, and corrupt elite.

      BAP would say—indeed does say—that this is where the logic of equality inherently and inevitably leads. He even goes so far as to deny that the American Founders meant a word of their rhetoric. I think this is impossible to sustain as a historical matter, but on the larger philosophical question it is possible that the founders meant every word but were still wrong. It’s fair to say, however, that BAP’s followers take for granted that the idea of equality is false. They even have a derisive term for it: “equalism.” They dismiss the language of the founders, of rights, of the American political tradition as “Enlightenment,” which—rest assured—they don’t mean as a compliment.

     And I have more bad news for my fellow conservatives: the talented kids who’ve found this book aren’t listening to us. It doesn’t matter whether they aren’t listening because they found the book, or they found the book because they aren’t listening. The fact remains that all our earnest explanations of the true meaning of equality, how it comports with nature, how it can answer their dissatisfactions, and how it’s been corrupted—none of that has made a dent.

      This—of course—doesn’t mean that we should abandon our understanding. Truth is truth, and if we’re right, we’re right. But it does mean that we need to acknowledge a serious rhetorical deficiency that we’ve not even begun to learn how to overcome. In the spiritual war for the hearts and minds of the disaffected youth on the right, conservatism is losing. BAPism is winning.

   In an interesting course of action, BAP has publish a response to the review. If you want the highlights, read "Bronze Age Pervert: Response To Michael Anton" at Malcolm Pollack's site, but the whole of BAP's response is published at The American Mind under the title, "America’s Delusional Elite Is Done." Again, you need to read Anton's review to get the most out of BAP's response.

   I'm not going to try and provide a full summary of BAP's response (you can read Pollack's post if you want a summary) nor reproduce his article. But here are a few of the important point. First, BAP asserts that:

What you are witnessing, I would like to tell the readers of Claremont, is the unraveling of the postwar American regime—or what is mendaciously called by its toadies the “liberal world order”—in a way that is far more thorough than the disturbances of the 1960’s, and with consequences that will be far more dire.

He also notes that:

The “altright” doesn’t exist and has nothing to do with the media representations of it—really attempts to redefine it and control it—as a form of “white nationalism,” “skinheads,” the various public figures they’ve tried to anoint as its leaders (only to make them ridiculous and tear them down), or even—and here is what is crucial to understand—just “white males” or the just “right wing.” The same phenomenon is taking place on the left, and there is much more crossover than older people realize: there is much more involvement also by nonwhite youth and particularly by Latino, Asian, and multiracial youth in this phenomenon than people want to admit. I’m not saying this to run away from a charge of “racism,” but to try to show you that you can’t, and won’t be able to, contain what is happening now by typecasting it as an “angry young white male” thing. That is wishful thinking on your part, if you believe it.

And this makes sense if you have ever followed the discussions from Red Pilled sites. Rather, BAP explains:

What is going on now is a widespread rejection of the ruling authorities and their beliefs, on the part primarily, but not only, of the American youth at large. This is similar to the rejection of communism by dissidents and youth in the Soviet bloc in the 1970’s and 80’s, and driven by similar causes.

For instance, BAP writes, "The anti-male and anti-White rhetoric of the new left is extreme. The racial attacks on whites in particular approaches exterminationist propaganda seen only in, e.g., the Hutu against the Tutsi in 1990’s Rwanda." And he gives numerous examples. And this is also where he damns the main stream Conservatives:

Whether out of loyalty to the generally leftist social sphere in which the conservative intellectual establishment lives, or out of simple fear, mainstream and traditional conservatives have completely discredited themselves by failing to oppose the violent racial hatred and other forms of unprecedented insanity coming from the new left. I haven’t even yet touched the conservative powerlessness when it came to stopping the destruction of the family; or the new push for the sexualization and grooming of children on behalf of transsexualism and other supposed “sexual identities.” This one crucial matter extends the appeal of the “frog people” far beyond that of any one racial or ethnic group.

And worship of the God of GDP isn't cutting it either.

Many seem to think that success for example in a white collar job is the key to solving this problem of discontent with the new American regime. But strangely enough today it is the large corporations, Big Tech, high finance and other white collar institutions that promote the most restrictive and aggressive leftism. 

 He continues:

       The problem Anton or other conservatives must face isn’t that my audience, or the “youth” in question doesn’t accept the principles of the American Founding, but that the left and thereby a large part of the establishment rejected these principles long ago. The left has been saying exactly what they plan to do for decades. They want to destroy your country, instill a death wish in the white population, set majorities against market-dominant minorities, atomize everyone: the British plan in Malaysia and a few other places but now applied domestically within a country. 

      But the conservatives didn’t do anything, or anything effective, to counter the left—this is the problem. Many conservatives would rather blame people who point out the left’s explicit intentions. If Hillary Clinton says that Merkel is her role model a year after Merkel made the youth of Germany a minority in their own country, and if we point this out and support any candidate who might prevent this unprecedented madness, it is mainstream conservatives who call us Nazis and worse simply for pointing out the left’s stated goals. 

     I would be ready to concede that I wouldn’t have an audience, or a much smaller one, if this was the America of the Founding or even that of the 1980’s. Your problem isn’t my audience, but that your analysis and words and ideas are so far from reality that you don’t even see the reasons why I have this audience in the first place. 

     The left completely abandoned Americanism in the 1960’s; at this point they’ve also abandoned biological reality. Vitalism is all that is left against their demented biological Leninism. Encouraging health, normality, and physical nobility against their celebration of deformity, obesity, and sexual catamitism must be one of the basic functions of conservatism in our time. It is one of the reasons my message is powerful among many who are fed up with the left’s gospel of wretchedness: what is your plan to take that on?

Related Posts:

• "Reject Passivity"
• "Secret Combinations"
• "Micah 5:8 and Civil War"
• "Book Review: The Devil's Pleasure Palace by Michael Walsh"

P for Projection -- My review of "V for Vendetta"

           V for Vendetta, a 2005-2006 film, popped up on my Netflix recommendations last night. Knowing that it has a certain cachet among the Left, I decided to watch it.

(Source)

          If you haven't seen the film, the basic premise is that a conservative Christian politician, Adam Sutler (played by John Hurt) plotted his rise to power by unleashing a false-flag biological terror attack, a la the Reichstag fire, on London, beginning with the release of a toxic virus at a school for young children. Frightened by the attack,  Sutler's party is overwhelmingly voted into power and he eventually becomes a dictator, calling himself Chancellor. England becomes a totalitarian state in a fashion that is a mix of 1984 and the Nazi regime.

         The titular character, V, is one of the original test subjects used to develop the virus used in the terror attack. Unlike the other subjects that all died, however, V becomes stronger and more intelligent, essentially transforming into something akin to Frankenstein's monster from the Frankenstein novel. He somehow escapes from the cell in which he is being held and destroys the research lab, escaping into the night. From that point on, he plots his revenge, living underground and hiding his deformed appearance with a Guy Fawkes mask, similar to the Phantom of the Opera.

         All of the foregoing is slowly revealed through the movie, which begins some 20 years after V's escape, on a Guy Fawkes day, when our other main protagonist, Evey (played by Natalie Portman), is caught outside after curfew by members of the secret police. V saves Evey from them, and then takes her to a roof top to witness as he blows up the Old Bailey, the central criminal court for England and Wales. V subsequently sends a message over the central television network proclaiming that he will, on the next Guy Fawkes day, destroy the Parliament building.

        The rest of the movie then revolves around Evey's interaction with other characters in order to show what a despotic government under which she lives, as well as her conversion to V's point of view; V's successful efforts to kill off those responsible for his imprisonment; and Eric Finch, an investigator for Scotland Yard that is tasked with tracking down V, but along the way learns of the back story to V and the false flag attack that gave rise to Sutler's rise to power.

        The story culminates with V's final confrontation with Sutler and Sutler's right hand man, thousands of people descending on Parliament whilst dressed as Guy Fawkes, to witness its destruction, and the destruction of the Parliament building, as promised, by a bomb delivered by a subway car along a forgotten subway tunnel running below the Parliament building. The audience is left to presume that the death of the top leaders of the party and destruction of the Parliament building will automatically, somehow, lead to freedom and prosperity.

      The impression I was left with was that the movie was simply two hours of Leftist/Liberal projection onto social conservatives.

      First, we have the Chancellor Sutler, a "Big Brother" type character, who is portrayed as a religious conservative blinded by power and who wants to enforce his beliefs over all of England. Thus, we learn that there are books, music and art that is forbidden, including the Koran. Of course, as we have witnessed, the censorship and thought control doesn't come from conservatives, but from the Left, with a constantly evolving and broadening of what cannot be discussed because it is not Politically Correct, the censorship of content on social media, and the general hostility shown in media toward Christians and white men, and Antifa shutting down conservative speakers through riots and protests. It apparently is completely lost on the Left that the two worst tyrants of the 20th Century, Stalin and Mao, were both communist, and that Hitler was a socialist.

      Next, one of the character's hunted down by V is a lecherous Bishop, and an ally of Sutler, who likes young girls. Yet in real life, we saw the #metoo movement arise because of the behavior of the liberals and leftist of Hollywood and big media, with rumors of pedophile rings among the liberal elite, including the liberals running the BBC. And where we have seen sexual abuse among Catholic priests, it has turned out to be either committed by, or protected by, clergy that were considered liberals and, generally, were homosexual. The reason that liberal elites are so convinced of "toxic masculinity" is because the liberal men with whom they associate with are boors, abusers and deviants.

     The movie makes reference to persecution against Muslims, including one of the secondary characters being executed because he possessed a Koran. Thus, it was ironic, at least to me, that the thousands of V supporters storming the military and police barricade around the Parliament building are seen marching down the length of Westminster Bridge--the very same bridge that, in 2017, was the scene of a Muslim terrorist attack. And one of the main story points was that the false flag bio-terror attack started at a school, with one scene shot outside the memorial for the children that died. Again, this is ironic given that thousands of young girls were raped in various British cities by religiously motivated Muslim gangs, but the police did nothing in order to not appear racist.

     Two of the secondary characters are homosexual, and the movie makes clear that homosexuals are being persecuted by the ruling political party. Yet, again, turning to real life, we see that it is the so-called liberals, including homosexuals on the Left, that are the persecutors, driving Christian bakers and photographers out of business, forcing passage of laws and regulations to outlaw expressing one's belief that homosexuality or gay marriage is morally wrong under the guise of "hate speech", and generally attacking anyone who objects to gay marriage or allowing transvestites into women's restrooms. (See, e.g., here, here, here and here).

      In short, V for Vendetta is film wherein liberals project their worst impulses onto conservatives, as a way of making them feel better about themselves.

Don't Get Carried Away: "Smiling Tennessee hardware store owner puts ‘No Gays Allowed’ sign back up outside shop after Supreme Court ruling…"

        The article can be found here, at The Daily Mail.  It reports:

        The Baptist minister banned homosexuals because he said he hated their ‘sin’ and claimed it was his legal right to refuse their entry. 

        He installed the sign to express his Christian beliefs, as he believes that gay and lesbian couples are against his religion. 

        After an intense backlash and public scrutiny, he backed down, and removed the homophobic [sic] sign.

While I sympathize with his stance that the freedom of association also includes the the right to not associate, he seems to have misunderstood the SCOTUS decision in Masterpiece Cakeshop, Ltd. v. Colorado Civil Rights Comm'n. The ruling in that case was based on the Colorado Civil Rights Commission having and expressing an anti-Christian bias, thus violating the First Amendment, which requires religious neutrality from the government. It probably helped that the baker in that case didn't just make a cake (contrary to the dissenting opinions), but met with clients and got to know them in order to create a truly unique cake that represented the couple. Thus, his baking services walked the line (or even crossed over the line) between merely producing a cake and producing art. I'm sure that the majority did not want to get sucked into a quagmire of trying to explain what was "artistic expression" versus merely "baking a cake," and so latched onto an alternative ground to support their decision.

       However, the Court did not hold that a business generally open to the public could simply refuse service because of the proprietor's religious belief. In fact, the Court waxes on about how "[o]ur society has come to the recognition that gay persons and gay couples cannot be treated as social outcasts or as inferior in dignity and worth." (Of course, it wasn't our society, but our government that has decided that homosexuals are a protected class). And, even recognizing that a person can have a valid religious objection to gay marriage, the Court's opinion continues:

Nevertheless, while those religious and philosophical objections are protected, it is a general rule that such objections do not allow business owners and other actors in the economy and in society to deny protected persons equal access to goods and services under a neutral and generally applicable public accommodations law.

 In short, the Masterpiece Cakeshop decision does not really change the law. I don't know if Tennessee generally, or the minister's particular locale, prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation. However, if it does prohibit such conduct, I don't see any circumstances where this shop owner gets legal protection. It would be hard to argue that reselling mass produced hardware to the public constitutes any form of protected speech, or could be considered as a public endorsement of gay marriage. Also, I would note that even where a state does not expressly forbid discrimination against homosexuals, the various civil rights commissions or agencies are increasingly extending prohibitions against sex discrimination to include homosexuality.

A Fifth Column

       I had noted the other day some news stories concerning a blogger calling herself Alya who blogged at Nordic Sunrise. Her "sin," in the eyes of the left, is (1) she objected to rap and its ghetto culture being celebrated and incorporated within the body of the Church, and (2) she generally seeks to honor and preserve her Nordic heritage, and believes those of European descent should do likewise.

       I cited a couple of news stories that had attacked her, calling her racist, and noted that they did not actually report anything that could be objectively considered racist. I have since come across two more articles about her:

       Buzzfeed, in a piece entitled "Meet The (Alt-Right) Mormons: Inside The Church's Vocal White Nationalist Wing," holds Alya up as the poster-child for the alleged "Alt-Right" wing of the Mormon Church. Based on what I see in the article, any Church member that is white and voted for Donald Trump is part of this "Alt-Right" "white nationalist" movement. The article reassures its readers, though, that support for Trump and his populist message "are anathema to many members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS)." Over 70% of the Church members in Utah voted for Trump, which is why it is "many" instead of "most."

       In any event, the article attacks her for being a conservative--i.e., seeking to conserve our culture and way of life.  It attacks her for being concerned about white genocide. In short, it attacks her because she is opposed to Cultural Marxism. She writes at her blog:

... America and Europe citizens have become self obsessed, lazy, fat, demanding, spoiled, loud, controlling, egotistical and mentally ill. Feminism, homosexuality, atheism, hedonism, and transgender-ism are being promoted while the hard work and priorities of family and faith have all but died away and this pattern is killing us, physically and spiritually.

Is she wrong?

       The New York Post has also joined the fray with its article, "This young mom is the face of Mormonism’s hateful alt-right." It again focuses on her dislike for rap, and encouraging whites to celebrate their cultural heritage. Nowhere does it cite her encouraging hatred against other peoples.

       Sadly, however, some of the most vociferous attacks have been from supposed Mormons. Ayla reports:

      Instead of actually reading what I wrote or addressing any of the issues I raised, people, Mormons, have simply attacked me. I’ve had a few comments from people who disagreed respectfully, but I could count those on one hand. Instead 99% of the comments I’ve received have been hateful nonsense, strawman arguments attacking positions I don’t have, have never made and don’t hold. Or they have simply attacked me personally instead of rebutting my points. 

       I have had MORMONS threaten to kill me, threaten to rape me, threaten to kill or harm my children. Mormons. Let that sink in. At one point in time Mormons were considered the nicest people in the country but so many of them have become rabidly anti traditional family, anti basic church principles and anti white. 

These Mormons that have attacked her are a Fifth Column--traitors and usurpers. It is particularly ironic, given that this very morning, Elder Dale G. Renlund of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles gave a talk in which he noted that members need to show respect to allow others to express their views. Unfortunately, the left have no desire to allow free expression, but only want to allow that with which they agree. And, as I've noted before, the poison of the left has seeped deeply into the Church.

       The Church authorities seem to be pushing more inclusiveness in order to further spread the gospel, but I'm afraid that all this does is encourage the Fifth Column that would rather see the Church become part of the world, instead of being part of the body of Christ. We are, in any event, approaching the time when the doors to the Lord's feast will be closed. We will have to become more exclusive just to maintain our Christianity; to close our doors against the wickedness of the world. The time is fast approaching where the voices of our testimony will be silenced, and, instead, it will be the time for God to preach his testimony via disasters, famine, and upheaval.

Anti-fascist Group in Seattle Threatens Those Who Date Whites

The warning was recently posted in Seattle, including some around the University of Washington area. (Source) According to a separate article on the subject, the group--Emerald City Antifa--is a Seattle based anti-authoritarian organizing group. Antifa is short hand for "anti-fascist." The author of the latter article viewed the posters as being threats against minority women dating white men, although that is not the only interpretation.

The Fate of r-strategists

There is a popular meme that goes: "Kill them all and let God sort them out." I've previously pointed out, however, that the Apocalypse and Second Coming does not actually require concerted action on the part of the righteous to eliminate the wicked--the wicked will kill many (perhaps most) of each other, and God (through natural disasters and, perhaps, more direct action) will eliminate the rest. The scriptures' description of the Lord gathering in his harvest of souls and then razing the vineyard or field is an apt metaphor. 

I was thinking of this as I read a recent post from the Anonymous Conservative, entitled "Migrant Children Bullying Local Children In Canada." Although describing the Apocalypse from the viewpoint of r/K theory and evolution, he makes essentially the same observation: we need do nothing to destroy the r-strategists (the "rabbits"), but they will do it to themselves.

The background for his comments is increased incidents of bullying of Canadian children by the kids of migrants, but that these migrant kids weren't being punished as a result. He goes on to write:

Look at this wonderful situation the rabbits have created. K-strategists can either watch their children be tormented, or they can engage in violence to defend them, and be imprisoned. The rabbits have substantially reduced the ability of any K-strategist to enjoy a significant fitness advantage, and they did it with no cost to themselves. They can act out against us without any personal risk or cost whatsoever. This is the strategy, and it is burned into the core of the rabbit’s subconscious. 

The key is to recognize that we are approaching the K-shift. Resources are beginning to constrict now, and they will collapse in the not too distant future. When they run out, there will be a period during which it will be survival of the fittest. Rabbits will beg for protection and help in surviving the bedlam. If they are left to fend for themselves, Darwin will reset the balance for us – brutally. 

Fight during times of r, and you are playing the rabbit’s game. Wait until the Apocalypse, and Darwin will play the game for you. All you need to do is let him. ... 

Mormon Missionaries Visit Black Church--Panic Ensues

Watch out for the scary missionaries (Source)

From WISTV in North Carolina:

The Rowan Sheriff's Office is investigating after a member of a Salisbury church reported a troubling incident that he said took place during a revival service on Tuesday night.

On Wednesday, church deacon James Greene told deputies that during the service at St. Luke Baptist Church on Hawkinstown Road, three white men [oh no!] entered the African-American church carrying "black nylon shoulder bags."

The men were said to have entered the church just after 9:00 pm, which church members thought was unusual.

Greene said that two of the men remained at the back of the church, while the third "got into the pulpit with the pastor while he was preaching." As this was happening, Greene said that one of the other men took pictures on his phone.

Once the service ended, Greene said that he approached the men and told them that they were welcome to attend services, but that "they may want to consider leaving their shoulder bags in their vehicle."

Greene said that one of the men was from Texas, one from Idaho, and the third did not say where he was from. The men showed Greene badges [i.e., name tags] identifying themselves as Mormons, and they said that they were working from a Mormon Church on Julian Road.

No one called 911 or took any pictures, according to investigators. They say the men were only described as white, and in their 20's, and were wearing white shirts, dark ties, and dark pants. There was no vehicle description. [Because they were on bicycles?] 

Investigators told Greene that they would follow up and would have a deputy check on the church as revival services continued.

Note: The copyright to the story is 2014, but it indicates it was published only a couple days ago. (H/t Weasel Zippers).

Honoring Independence Day

Signing of the Declaration of Independence by John Trumbull 

Although there is some debate when the declaration was signed, the document was approved by the Continental Congress on July 4, 1776. It is related that John Hancock supposedly said that Congress, having signed the Declaration, must now "all hang together", to which Benjamin Franklin replied: "Yes, we must indeed all hang together, or most assuredly we shall all hang separately."

In that spirit, I would commend to you an op-ed by Angelo M. Codevilla entitled "Standing Up to the Ruling Class." Codevilla observes:

The ruling class’s component groups jointly dismiss America’s traditional liberties because they aim to replace them with their own primacy. Having seized the power to redefine liberty, our rulers tighten their definitions around their opponents’ necks like nooses. Since their desire for primacy has no limit, they can’t stop tightening. The norms that they demand that we honor help sustain each constituency by letting its members feel good about themselves while looking down on others. Their “dignitary interests” (to use Justice Kennedy’s term for who must be honored vs. those who must submit to being vilified) simply trump those of others. This is why the ruling class demonizes any questioning of its demands’ substance by imposing modern equivalents of the slave-era “gag rule.” They wage identity politics as war. 

* * *

Peaceable behavior will not protect you from being hounded as a “hater.” A whiff of “offensive” attitudes is enough for the ruling class to make you as untouchable as the lepers of old. Nor is silence a refuge. Just as you must honor homosexuality, so you must affirm that certain Americans are “racists” addicted to “white privilege.” Do you demur? Then, Racist that you are, you must be shunned and should be fired. Do you support governmental efforts to reverse “anthropogenic global warming”? If you demur, you are a Denier who endangers our national security, and must be treated as a kook. Should you refuse to pledge your fealty to the proposition that life and the universe are the meaningless result of chance, you reveal yourself to be a Religious Zealot, an “American Taliban,” ineligible for public and private trust. Do you have reservations about the constitutionality or beneficence of administrative government? Then you are an Extremist, a proper target for Homeland Security, the IRS, the NSA, etc. Do you refuse to celebrate “terminating a pregnancy” as women’s fundamental right? Then you are a Warrior against Women, possibly a terrorist. Do you own guns? Ipso facto, you are a Violent Extremist.

The pretexts differ. But the reality is the same: Bow or be persecuted. 

Law no longer protects you. The ruling class does not punish through laws, and seldom by official actions, nor in any manner amenable to argument. Its bites come from officials and judges, from the connected and protected, whose rule is “Stop me if you can,” and who shove reason aside with epithets such as “offensive” and “hateful.” ...

* * *

The practical problem in America has been that when the ruling class trains its united wrath against persons in any one sector — e.g., supporters of marriage as the dictionary and the law have defined it, or those who support economic probity or the right to keep and bear arms — the general public quietly stands by. No longer accustomed to speaking together, Americans hang separately. ...

Codevilla argues that the means of resisting the ruling class is to speak and argue the truth.

Consequently, if we wish to remain who we are in the face of threats and declamations meant to force us to honor intellectual and moral falsehoods, we have no alternative but clearly and loudly to distinguish between true and false, fully making the case for what we believe to be right. There is no viable alternative to confronting the ruling class’s fantasies and euphemisms substantively, in detail. 

* * * 

... For the members of the public to transcend their isolation enough to threaten the ruling class’s hold on the commanding heights of American society would require a nationwide movement with which disparate individuals could identify, and which could encourage them to join together and speak up. 

Read the whole thing.

The Benedict Option and the Death of the Republic (Updated)

Notwithstanding the Court's gay marriage ruling, many religions still oppose the practice. For instance, the LDS Church authorities stated:

"The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints acknowledges that following today's ruling by the Supreme Court, same-sex marriages are now legal in the United States. The Court's decision does not alter the Lord's doctrine that marriage is a union between a man and a woman ordained by God. While showing respect for those who think differently, the Church will continue to teach and promote marriage between a man and a woman as a central part of our doctrine and practice."

I have written a bit about the implications of the recent gay marriage ruling and the potential for persecution of Christians here and here. As I noted, we have only to look at Canada for a glimpse of the future, where gay activists will use the legalization of gay marriage as a stick with which to beat Christians and Christian organizations. The question is "now what do we do?"

One route is civil disobedience and continuing to fight to retain our religious rights. For instance, USA Today reported a couple days ago that "Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton issued a statement Sunday saying state workers can refuse to issue same-sex marriage licenses if doing so is contrary to his or her religious beliefs." Various pastors have called for civil disobedience, including many black pastors (an interesting development which could see many blacks lose their enthusiasm for the Democratic party) (See also here). Bishop Michael Jarrell, the bishop of the Catholic diocese of Lafayette, Louisiana, has also advised Catholics to resist even if it means breaking the law. Others, including some senior Republican leaders, believe it is time to just move on.

Whether civil disobedience or "moving on," Rob Dreher, writing at Time magazine, warned that Christians must now learn to live as exiles in our own country. He writes:

It is now clear that for this Court, extremism in the pursuit of the Sexual Revolution’s goals is no vice. True, the majority opinion nodded and smiled in the direction of the First Amendment, in an attempt to calm the fears of those worried about religious liberty. But when a Supreme Court majority is willing to invent rights out of nothing, it is impossible to have faith that the First Amendment will offer any but the barest protection to religious dissenters from gay rights orthodoxy.

Indeed, Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito explicitly warned religious traditionalists that this decision leaves them vulnerable. Alito warns that Obergefell “will be used to vilify Americans who are unwilling to assent to the new orthodoxy,” and will be used to oppress the faithful “by those who are determined to stamp out every vestige of dissent.”

The warning to conservatives from the four dissenters could hardly be clearer or stronger. So where does that leave us?

For one, we have to accept that we really are living in a culturally post-Christian nation. The fundamental norms Christians have long been able to depend on no longer exist. To be frank, the court majority may impose on the rest of the nation a view widely shared by elites, but it is also a view shared by a majority of Americans. There will be no widespread popular resistance to Obergefell. This is the new normal.

For another, LGBT activists and their fellow travelers really will be coming after social conservatives. The Supreme Court has now, in constitutional doctrine, said that homosexuality is equivalent to race. The next goal of activists will be a long-term campaign to remove tax-exempt status from dissenting religious institutions. [Docent: activists are already calling for this--"Now’s the Time To End Tax Exemptions for Religious Institutions," an op-ed at Time). The more immediate goal will be the shunning and persecution of dissenters within civil society. After today, all religious conservatives are Brendan Eich, the former CEO of Mozilla who was chased out of that company for supporting California’s Proposition 8.

Third, the Court majority wrote that gays and lesbians do not want to change the institution of marriage, but rather want to benefit from it. This is hard to believe, given more recent writing from gay activists like Dan Savage expressing a desire to loosen the strictures of monogamy in all marriages. Besides, if marriage can be redefined according to what we desire — that is, if there is no essential nature to marriage, or to gender — then there are no boundaries on marriage. Marriage inevitably loses its power.

In that sense, social and religious conservatives must recognize that the Obergefell decision did not come from nowhere. It is the logical result of the Sexual Revolution, which valorized erotic liberty. It has been widely and correctly observed that heterosexuals began to devalue marriage long before same-sex marriage became an issue. The individualism at the heart of contemporary American culture is at the core of Obergefell — and at the core of modern American life.

This is profoundly incompatible with orthodox Christianity. But this is the world we live in today.

One can certainly understand the joy that LGBT Americans and their supporters feel today. But orthodox Christians must understand that things are going to get much more difficult for us. We are going to have to learn how to live as exiles in our own country. We are going to have to learn how to live with at least a mild form of persecution. And we are going to have to change the way we practice our faith and teach it to our children, to build resilient communities.

It is time for what I call the Benedict Option. In his 1982 book After Virtue, the eminent philosopher Alasdair MacIntyre likened the current age to the fall of ancient Rome. He pointed to Benedict of Nursia, a pious young Christian who left the chaos of Rome to go to the woods to pray, as an example for us. We who want to live by the traditional virtues, MacIntyre said, have to pioneer new ways of doing so in community. We await, he said “a new — and doubtless very different — St. Benedict.”

Throughout the early Middle Ages, Benedict’s communities formed monasteries, and kept the light of faith burning through the surrounding cultural darkness. Eventually, the Benedictine monks helped refound civilization.

I believe that orthodox Christians today are called to be those new and very different St. Benedicts. How do we take the Benedict Option, and build resilient communities within our condition of internal exile, and under increasingly hostile conditions? I don’t know. But we had better figure this out together, and soon, while there is time.

Hunter Baker similarly warns at The Federalist:

It is not hard to see where this is going. The gay marriage debate is not about gay marriage any more than the Confederate flag debate is about racism. It is about free speech. The court’s ruling on gay marriage announces that in due course the First Amendment is to be sacrificed on the altar of the Fourteenth Amendment. Prior to this ruling, bakers and wedding photographers had already suffered fines and the threat of imprisonment for refusing to serve gay customers. Brendan Eich was among the first high-profile CEOs fired for his views on gay marriage, but he will not be the last. Eventually, churches and religious nonprofits will have their tax status threatened if they do not accommodate the new consensus on gay marriage.

It is not enough for the Left to live and let live. You must change your mind. You must not hold disfavored views. You must be the right sort of person. If you’re not, you will be muzzled.

A few years back, the late Cardinal George of the Catholic Archdiocese of Chicago, who died in April, said this: “I expect to die in bed, my successor will die in prison and his successor will die a martyr in the public square. His successor will pick up the shards of a ruined society and slowly help rebuild civilization, as the Church has done so often in human history.”

The implications of the Court's decision on gay marriage go beyond merely its impact on Christians and the institution of marriage. That decision--as well as several others from this past week--go to the heart of whether our Constitution is the highest law of the land, or merely guide stars representing vague ideals that can be reconstructed and reinterpreted as desired. I read sometime yesterday or the day before an article where the author noted (lamented, in fact) that there has been so little activity to amend the U.S. Constitution. However, as I have noted in other times and places, there is no need to formally amend the Constitution when all it takes is 5 justices to agree to a new interpretation. Rand Simberg addresses this issue further in his article, "How Republics Die." He writes:

But too many people (including, apparently and sadly, many of the justices themselves, perhaps even including the chief justice) think that the purpose of the Supreme Court is to give them things they like, like subsidies for health care, or the right to marry someone of the same sex. They care only about the results, and are utterly indifferent to the process (as we saw with the way the PPACA was passed). They believe that the ends, if sufficiently desirable, always justify the means.

But the means matter.

If, as Chief Justice Roberts implied yesterday, ambiguous laws can be changed by judges per their divination of legislative intent, then there is no law except what the judges think it is. (I would note that in fact his reasoning was fundamentally flawed by his statement that it was Congress’s goal to simply “improve insurance markets.” I think their intent was to increase their control over our health providers, and ultimately lead us down a path to single payer. But neither of us knows.) This was not judicial activism — it was judicial nihilism.

Similarly, if the Fourteenth Amendment contains a hitherto unknown right to marry someone of the same sex, then it contains multitudes of rights that will be discovered in the future by more “enlightened” judges.

 * * *

It [single-sex marriage, or SSM] was becoming legal in more and more states (though often, as was the case here, not by a popular vote, but by judicial fiat). Such a trend was probably inevitable, and young people are much more favorable to the idea than older ones (though they may change their minds as they age, as people do on many other issues). It was creating a problem in terms of “full faith and credit” between states that recognized it and those that did not.

But the Founders foresaw this sort of thing. That is why they put a provision into the founding document to deal with it. The proper way to address the issue, in terms of making SSM universal, was not to manufacture a new right from the Constitution, but rather to amend it. But that is something that hasn’t happened in a long time, because it is (rightly) difficult to do, and the Congress, the courts and the public have become too impatient, and prefer to sidestep it (which in fact has happened in, among other things, the federal War on Drugs, which somehow didn’t seem to require an amendment even though the prohibition of alcohol did).

The Constitution was meant to be the bedrock of laws, and the laws were to be enacted by the Congress, and signed by the president, not ignored or superseded by the president, or rewritten by the chief justice, to satisfy their own preferences, or those of others, even a majority. We are neither a tyranny of men, or that of a majority. As has often been told, when Benjamin Franklin came out of the Constitutional Convention, a woman asked him, “Mr. Franklin, what have you given us?” His reply: “A republic, madam, if you can keep it.”

When we ignore and side step the Constitutional and legal process to achieve a desired end, the bedrock starts to turn to sand. When the laws are ignored by those who have sworn to uphold or review them, the rule of law itself disintegrates. When the public doesn’t care, or understand the role of the branches of government, but votes anyway for people who tell them they’ll just give them stuff they like, that is how republics are lost.

 (See also "Justice Kennedy’s Matryoshka Doll" by Roger Kimball; and "Was Supreme Court Justice John Roberts Blackmailed?" by Wayne Root).

Update: The Silicon Graybeard: "On Today's SCOTUS Ruling." Also, Brad Torgerson notes that marriage, as an institution, has been on the rocks for a long time, and reminds us that strengthening the institution of marriage begins at home. And that we will be judged individually by God as to how much (or little) we work on our marriages. But there is the other side of the coin which is that God does judge nations, and even the innocent suffer in such times.

Another Update: Daniel Greenfield warns that there can be no truce or accommodation with the left:

To understand the left, you need to remember that it does not care about 99 percent of the things it claims to care about. ... The left fights all sorts of social and political battles not because it believes in them, but to radicalize, disrupt and take power.

The left does not care about social justice. It cares about power.

That is why no truce is possible with the left. Not on social issues. Not on any issues.

 He also dismisses "living with it" or "moving on" when it comes to the important social and political issues recently won (or taken) by the left. Instead, he encourages freedom loving individuals to be the best saboteurs they can be.

Also, read "Marching Happily Toward Our Cultural Decline" at Diogenes' Middle Finger.

Update (7/1/2015): More about the death of the Republic. From "Supreme Court Disasters" at Real Clear Politics:

Many people are looking at the recent Supreme Court decisions about ObamaCare and same-sex marriage in terms of whether they think these are good or bad policies. That is certainly a legitimate concern, for both those who favor those policies and those who oppose them.

But there is a deeper and more long-lasting impact of these decisions that raise the question whether we are still living in America, where "we the people" are supposed to decide what kind of society we want, not have our betters impose their notions on us.

The Constitution of the United States says that the federal government has only those powers specifically granted to it by the Constitution -- and that all other powers belong either to the states or to the people themselves.

That is the foundation of our freedom, and that is what is being dismantled by both this year's Obamacare decision and last year's ObamaCare decision, as well as by the Supreme Court's decision imposing a redefinition of marriage.

Last year's Supreme Court decision declaring ObamaCare constitutional says that the federal government can order individual citizens to buy the kind of insurance the government wants them to buy, regardless of what the citizens themselves prefer.

The Constitution gave the federal government no such power, but the Supreme Court did. It did so by citing the government's power to tax, even though the ObamaCare law did not claim to be taxing.

This year's ObamaCare decision likewise ignored the actual words of the law, and decided that the decisions of 34 states not to participate in ObamaCare Exchanges, even to get federal subsidies, would not prevent those federal subsidies to be paid anyway, to Exchanges [set] up by the federal government itself.

When any branch of government can exercise powers not authorized by either statutes or the Constitution, "we the people" are no longer free citizens but subjects, and our "public servants" are really our public masters. And America is no longer America. The freedom for which whole generations of Americans have fought and died is gradually but increasingly being taken away from us with smooth and slippery words.

 See also "Hard Questions on Same Sex Marriage" by Richard Epstein at The Hoover Institute. He writes, in part:

Can the IRS now deny tax exemption to the Roman Catholic Church on the ground that it rejects, on religious grounds, same-sex marriage? If so, that judicial notion of “fundamental interests” works effortlessly both to expand and contract state power. It can insulate the exercise of some liberties from state control, but allow other liberties to be burdened by differential treatment of other liberties, including those expressly embedded in the Constitution.

The point here is not idle speculation. Here are three data points. In Martinez v. Christian Legal Foundation (2010), a five-to-four majority with Justice Kennedy concurring, held that it was perfectly proper for Hastings Law School, a public institution, to deny the tiny Christian Legal Foundation the full benefit of school facilities largely because of its opposition to same-sex marriage. The government can offer its subsidies to some groups but not to others, and in so doing, force small isolated groups to subsidize powerful gay rights organizations. Religious intolerance best describes that outcome.

Since then, the situation has only gotten worse. Last year there was public outrage at the Supreme Court’s decision in Burwell v. Hobby Lobby, which upheld claims under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act that a closely held company did not have to supply contraceptives to its female employees in a fashion inconsistent with its owners’ religious beliefs. And more recently, claims for religious autonomy have been crushed in state court decisions that have fined individuals who have refused on religious grounds to make wedding cakes for same sex couples. No one seems to be concerned with the autonomy and dignity of those under the state’s thumb. They will have to abandon their chosen profession to honor their religious beliefs. I see no evidence that gay and lesbian rights advocates are prepared to back off of these statist claims.

 As for the dominoes or slippery slope arguments, I would note an article from U.S. News entitled "Polyamorous Rights Advocates See Marriage Equality Coming for Them."

Another Update: The AP reports that a handful of state probate judges in Alabama are still refusing to issue marriage licenses for gay marriage, leading to a threat from a federal judge to hold them in contempt of court. Although not mentioned in the article, a person can be jailed indefinitely in contempt of court so long as he/she refuses to comply with the court's order.