Lion of the Blogosphere

Republicans no longer the Christian party thanks to Trump

1. Trump has gay Peter Thiel address the audience. He says “fake culture wars only distract us from our economic decline, and nobody in this race is being honest about it except Donald Trump.”

2. There’s nothing in Trump’s speech about abortion at all. And nothing bad to say about gays, only that he’s going to protect “L.G.B.T.Q. citizens” from radical Islam.

3. In the transcript, Trump says “At this moment, I would like to thank the evangelical and religious community in general who have been so good to me and so supportive.” The he goes off teleprompter to add (if I remember correctly) “I don’t really deserve it.” The message to America is that Trump is NOT one of those anti-abortion anti-gay evangelicals.

This was a smart strategy, and one that went unnoticed by the MSM because they were too busy condemning him for being Hitler.

Even the previous keepers of the Republican Party realized that their core base was shrinking. Their dream was that Hispanics would become Republicans because they are religious Catholics and finally the Republican Party would have a strong majority to outlaw abortion. (This was a loser strategy. Hispanics never showed any inclination to leave the Democratic Party in order to prevent gringos from having abortions.)

Trump, on the other hand, is following my advice to broaden the party by bringing in blue-collar non-evangelical-Christian whites by rejecting the party’s pro-evangelical-Christian orthodoxy.

By the way, I’ve always thought that gay marriage was unnecessary, a case of gays wanting special recognition for themselves rather than being truly about rights, and somewhat harmful to the tradition of marriage which is a very good tradition is experiencing a worrisome decline. But the Republicans lost that war and Trump is right to surrender for the purpose of restoring American nationalism.

Written by Lion of the Blogosphere

July 22, 2016 at EDT am

Posted in Politics

30 Responses

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. And yet, Trump will finally make it possible for Roe v. Wade to be overturned. For Churches to refuse to perform gay weddings. And for Christian businesses to live by their beliefs.

    Andrew E.

    July 22, 2016 at EDT am

    • In other words, who knew that it was a flanking maneuver that would get this done rather than a head-on Pickett’s charge led by Pat Robertson?

      Andrew E.

      July 22, 2016 at EDT am

  2. cultural war stuff is a distraction in our war against Globalist Liberalism.

    You can see by the unhinged reaction of the Left to Trump’s speech that they really don’t care about gay rights, tranny bathrooms or abortions except as status signaling bullshit. What the Left truly cares about are open borders, crony capitalism and BLM.

    Otis the Sweaty

    July 22, 2016 at EDT am

  3. Your Orange totem also post constitutional as well because he found no need to say that he plans on supporting it.

    Lion of the Turambar

    July 22, 2016 at EDT am

    • Your false idol, the Constitution, has been dead and buried for several generations. Empty platitudinous posturing about upholding its tenets is worth exactly what it got Ted Cruz, nothing.

      G VIC

      July 22, 2016 at EDT pm

      • Indeed. I don’t really have anything against the constitution. But I’ve long considered “constitutionalists” a cult with a paper idol.


        July 22, 2016 at EDT pm

  4. Your last paragraph is very interesting, though perhaps not in the way you intended. If you followed the gay marriage litigation, at least the case that came out of the Ninth Circuit, you know that it was remarkable for the introduction of a new magic legal talisman known as “hate.” That is, the queers won the case simy by asserting, without any need for empirical showing, that opposition to gay marriage was motivated by str8 hate. Amazingly, that was good enough for the court, and SCOTUS affirmed. But guess what, opponents of immigration restriction also shout that “hate” is the illegitimate motive behind the desire for less porous borders. Presumably, any move by Trump to secure the borders could be stymied just by chanting the same mantra the poofs used to win on marriage.


    July 22, 2016 at EDT am

    • It’s a good thing Trump will be replacing nearly half the justices currently serving.


      July 22, 2016 at EDT pm

    • The risk with gay marriage is that it creates a logical disconnect from the underlying evo-bio-mating normative schema that marriage was set up to regulate that can result in rendering it useless and indeed parasitic/exploitative/maladaptive for those who wish to pursue a long-term (or in the words of the left, white-cis-hetero-patriarchal) mating strategy..

      Copied from above:

      Part I
      The thing which worries me about gay marriage is that the norms surrounding gay long-term relationships will be imported into the concept of marriage.

      (The above is a media write-up of a study that found that in a study of 566 gay couples, only 45 percent had made the promise to be sexually monogamous. This is an example of a different moral norm surrounding gay long-term relationships.)

      (In the above link is a NYTimes piece arguing that homosexual marriage could modernise (that is import different norms into) marriage as an institution.), specifically; “The traditional American marriage is in crisis, and we need insight,” he said, citing the fresh perspective gay couples bring to matrimony. “If innovation in marriage is going to occur, it will be spearheaded by homosexual marriages.”

      The importation of a moral norm like the one above surrounding gay long-term relationships would destroy the institution of marriage for heterosexuals who wish to pursue a long-term mating strategy.

      I don’t know many men who would sign up to an institution where the partners are expected/morally obliged to be emotionally faithful but not sexually faithful. It is much easier for women to get casual sex than men, so any man signing himself up to that deal would be signing himself up for cuckoldry and cuckoldry is the absolute worst thing that can happen to a man pursuing a long-term mating strategy, (and it is the evolved moral norms surrounding the long-term mating strategy which marriage as a cultural institution is/was developed around/for.)

      Of course, if people became more knowledgeable about evo-bio/evo-psych and instead started calling marriage essentially what it is, the social-codification of the long-term mating strategy in humans, then this concern wouldn’t really matter. (No worrying about importing norms anti-thetical to the reproductive interests of one party in the relationship and subsequently which disincentivises the pursuit of the strategy from that party as its definition is strictly evo-bio/evo-psych.)

      (On a side note, the reason I’ve given above is also why I think a lot of religious people are against gay marriage, they fear that it will change the institution and expose them to cuckoldry. This wouldn’t be the first time that religious norms have been developed to prevent cuckoldry/ensure paternal certainty;


      Of course, I doubt these fears will be allayed as doing so would go against the feminist establishment’s desire to create a matriarchial/matrilineal cad society where all men are cuckolds (if they aren’t cads that is), but that’s a whole different issue.)

      More evidence of different moral norms surrounding homosexual relationships:…
      see “In his book, The Soul Beneath the Skin, David Nimmons cites numerous studies which show that 75% of gay male couples are in successful open relationships.”
      This is the link to the actual study from the newspaper reports.
      This one provides a good review of the literature. But it is pay-gated.

      Part II
      But how on earth could gay marriage equality import different moral norms into the concept of marriage for heterosexuals you might say? Well, it’s very simple. Through the Courts. Remember, in our society, marriage is a legal construct.

      I’m going to quote from H. L. A. Hart’s ‘Positivism and the Separation of Law and Morals’ Harvard Law Review, Vol. 71, No. 4 (Feb., 1958), pp. 593-629.

      Which can be accessed here;

      How do judges decide (reason out) cases?

      “A legal rule forbids you to take a vehicle into the public park. Plainly this forbids an automobile, but what about bicycles, roller skates, toy automobiles? What about airplanes? Are these, as we say, to be called “vehicles” for the purpose of the rule or not? If we are to communicate with each other at all, and if, as in the most elementary form of law, we are to express our intentions that a certain type of behavior be regulated by rules, then the general words we use – like “vehicle” in the case I consider – must have some standard instance in which no doubts are felt about its application. There must be a core of settled meaning, but there will be, as well, a penumbra of debatable cases in which words are neither obviously applicable nor obviously ruled out. These cases will each have some features in common with the standard case; they will lack others or be accompanied by features not present in the standard case. Human invention and natural processes continually throw up such variants on the familiar, and if we are to say that these ranges of facts do or do not fall under existing rules, then the classifier must make a decision which is not dictated to him, for the facts and phenomena to which we fit our words and apply our rules are as it were dumb. The toy automobile cannot speak up and say, “I am a vehicle for the purpose of this legal rule,” nor can the roller skates chorus, “We are not a vehicle.” Fact situations do not await us neatly labeled, creased, and folded, nor is their legal classification written on them to be simply read off by the judge. Instead, in applying legal rules, someone must take the responsibility of deciding that words do or do not cover some case in hand with all the practical consequences involved in this decision.

      We may call the problems which arise outside the hard core of standard instances or settled meaning “problems of the penumbra”; they are always with us whether in relation to such trivial things as the regulation of the use of the public park or in relation to the multidimensional generalities of a constitution.”

      I’m going to propose several assumptions that will be used in a hypothetical. We need not debate these assumptions as I am just using them to illuminate a particular form of logic that would occur when deciding a legal case. These assumptions and the hypothetical will also be used to illuminate the existence of a moral system behind laws which the law attempts to divine (or which Judges at least attempt to) but which doesn’t always map directly onto that moral system.

      Assumption 1) Marriage exists as the social codification of the long-term mating strategy in humans.

      Assumption 2) The long-term mating strategy in humans consists of men exchanging their own exclusive physical investment for a woman’s exclusive sexual investment. If the man diverts his physical investment to another woman, this is at a cost to the original woman he promised it too. Likewise if a woman directs her sexual investment to another man this is at a cost to the original man that she promised it to.

      Assumption 3) Cuckoldry, that is the diversion of a woman’s sexual investment to one man while she is in a long-term relationship with another man is the worst thing that can possibly happen to that man who is in a long-term relationship with her. In a system where cuckoldry is rampant, male monogamy is not expected to evolve or exist, ergo the male long-term mating strategy is not expected to evolve or exist.

      Here is a hypothetical for you dealing with the penumbra.
      Let’s say we live in a legal system that protects the long-term mating interests of both a man and woman in a long-term mating relationship. Let’s say this society calls this long-term mating relationship, marriage. Let’s say that the underlying justification for this ‘marriage law’ is the evolutionary principles surrounding mating.

      Let’s then also say that a group to which this ‘marriage law’ does not apply, suddenly want to be included within the same legal construct.

      A married couple in this society want to get divorced. The woman has been adulterous, so the man wants to retract his physical investment in her, which means no providing resources or protection to her. Given that this legal system protects his long-term mating interests, and given that the underlying justification for this protection is the evolutionary principles surrounding mating, the judge allows him to retract his physical investment to the woman.

      Now let’s say that the group to which this ‘marriage law’ does not apply is Gay Men. And let’s say that Gay marriage is passed and they are suddenly allowed to marry.

      And let’s say that the justification for this allowance into the institution is ‘equality’.

      Now let’s also say that because these are gay men we are dealing with, that they do not have the same mating psychologies as heterosexual men and so are perfectly okay with sexual non-monogamy. There is no rule proscribing sex with others outside the marriage within gay long-term relationships.

      Now here is an instance in the penumbra. A gay couple has married, but they want to get divorced. One of them has been adulterous. However, it is argued in court that the norms surrounding gay long-term relationships do not proscribe adultery. Should this adultery factor into the division of assets, the supply of alimony? The exchange of physical investment from one of the men to the other? Is there even an exchange of physical investment? If the underlying basis of ‘marriage law’ are the evolutionary principles surrounding mating, how do you integrate a group of people whose mating behaviours violate those very principles into a system that has been designed to protect the interests conceived of via those principles? It doesn’t make sense to say that in a gay couple one partner can cuckold the other partner. So how can you apply a rule that retracts the physical investment from one party to another, when the basis for the existence of that rule, cuckoldry, doesn’t occur?

      It’s plausible that an exception could be made. Kind of like the whole, we have freedom of speech except you can’t yell fire in a crowded theatre type kind of exception. The law does this all the time. For instance a statue against cruelty to animals might exclude mice, rats, and pigeons from the definition of animal for the purposes of the statute, as a way to allow lab experimentation or pest removal, even though we all know that they are still animals in reality.

      But it’s also plausible that because the basis for the anti-cuckoldry rule does not occur in gay couples, that the rule won’t be applied, and it will be left at that.

      What then happens if another married couple come along, a heterosexual couple, and they want to divorce? The woman has been adulterous and so the man argues that he should be allowed retract his physical investment to the woman, i.e. no giving her assets he paid for, no giving her alimony due to there being anti-cuckoldry laws. But the woman is clever. She knows that gay married couples don’t have the anti-cuckoldry law applied to them, and she knows that gay marriage is to be treated as equal to heterosexual marriage, and so she argues that since anti-cuckoldry laws aren’t applied in gay marriage, then they shouldn’t be applied in heterosexual marriage as the two forms of marriage are equal. They are the same. Indeed, it is a conceptual error to even consider them two separate forms of marriage. There is only one form of marriage and thus by establishing that a gay couple divorcing don’t have anti-cuckoldry laws applied in their divorce, a heterosexual couple divorcing shouldn’t have anti-cuckoldry laws applied in a divorce either.

      Now all of a sudden, this institution, which has protected the long-term mating interests of men and women for centuries, has suddenly undermined a vital protection to the long-term mating interests of one of the parties by treating two separate categories, which have separate moral rules surrounding them, as if they were the same category. If you equalise the categories, then you need to equalise the rules surrounding the categories to make them equal.

      Now it is possible that the categories could be equalised, and they decide to just throw an exception in in those instances where it would be unjust to allow equal treatment, as a way to resolve the issue and allow gays and heterosexuals to marry while retaining the different moral rules for each category.

      But it’s also possible they won’t. And heterosexual men’s mating interests will be crushed within the crucible of rigorous logic.

      Part III
      Now you will probably say, “this is a superfluous example, our marriage laws don’t recognise an anti-cuckoldry law, they don’t exist to protect the long-term mating interests of each party, adultery doesn’t affect the division of property or the award of alimony.” And you’d be right. In your jurisdiction they don’t, and in my jurisdiction they don’t. But I would contend that they should. I would contend that for the greater part of both our jurisdiction’s legal history, indeed of Western legal history, that marriage laws did protect such interests and that the ultimate underlying justification for that protection (although not always realised) was evolutionary principles. I would contend that morality is based upon evolutionary principles and that the legal system should attempt to map as directly as possible to that underlying moral schema as much as possible. I would contend that our current marriage laws are an aberration in their rejection of evolutionary principles as their justification and are responsible for disincentivising marriage amongst heterosexuals rendering the institution redundant with each and every passing day. I would contend that this disincentivisation and such disregard of the mating interests of men is an unjust and immoral act and constitutes a moral deficit in our society. And finally, I would contend that the legalisation of gay marriage is a step in a direction away from rectifying that. It is a nail in the coffin of a marriage system being justified by an evolutionary schema.

      If you do away with anti-cuckoldry laws, you end the long-term mating strategy for men. You end monogamy. You end the nuclear family as a form of social organisation. You end Patriarchy.

      Now ask yourself, the people on the left pushing gay marriage. Do they have a history of trying to erode and dismantle the nuclear family, do they have a history of trying to erode and dismantle anti-cuckoldry laws and norms, do they have a history of trying to erode and dismantle Patriarchy? To answer the question is to illuminate their agenda with respect to gay marriage and the plausible direction that such equality will take. (Or at least the plausible direction they will attempt to take.)

      Part IV:

      For those who would argue;

      “I still don’t agree with you because first of all, your assumptions don’t hold up in reality. Your line of logic rests almost entirely on those assumptions. We don’t live in a conceptual world where your assumptions hold true. We live in the real world.”

      I would respond with;

      Assumptions 2 and 3 directly follow from principles enunciated in evolutionary biology and evolutionary psychology.

      Direct and indirect benefits
      Being choosy (having a bias in the context of mating) must incur a fitness advantage in order for this behavior to evolve. Two types of fitness benefits (direct and indirect) are thought to drive the evolutionary mechanisms of mate choice.

      Direct benefits increase the fitness of the choosy sex through direct material advantages. These benefits include but are not limited to increased territory quality, increased parental care, and protection from predators. There is much support for maintenance of mate choice by direct benefits[7] and it is the least controversial model to explain discriminate mating.[8]
      Indirect benefits increase genetic fitness for the offspring, and thereby increase the parents’ inclusive fitness. When it appears that the choosy sex does not receive direct benefits from his or her mate, indirect benefits may be the payoff for being selective. These indirect benefits may include high quality genes for their offspring (known as adaptive indirect benefits) or genes that make their offspring more attractive (known as arbitrary indirect benefits).[9]

      Short-term vs. long-term mating
      Evolutionary psychologists have proposed that individuals may adopt conditional mating strategies in which they adjust their mating tactics to relevant environmental or internal conditions.[23] To the extent that ancestral men were capable of pursuing short-term mating strategies with multiple women, the evolutionary benefits are relatively straightforward. Less clear, however, are the evolutionary benefits that women might have received from pursuing short-term mating strategies. One prominent hypothesis is that ancestral women selectively engaged in short-term mating with men capable of transmitting genetic benefits to their offspring such as health, disease resistance, or attractiveness (seegood genes theory and sexy son hypothesis). Since women cannot inspect men’s genes directly, they may have evolved to infer genetic quality from certain observable characteristics (see indicator traits). One prominent candidate for a “good genes” indicator includes fluctuating asymmetry, or the degree to which men deviate from perfect bodily symmetry. Other candidates include masculine facial features,[24] behavioral dominance,[25] and low vocal pitch.[26] Evolutionary psychologists have therefore predicted that women pursuing a short-term mating strategy will have higher preferences for these good genes indicators, and men who possess good genes indicators will be more successful in pursuing short-term mating strategies than men who do not. Indeed, research indicates that self-perceived physical attractiveness,[27] fluctuating asymmetry,[28] and low vocal pitch[29] are positively related to short-term mating success in men but not in women. Women prefer purported good genes indicators more for a short-term mate than for a long-term mate, and a related line of research shows that women’s preferences for good genes indicators in short-term mates tends to increase during peak fertility in the menstrual cycle just prior to ovulation.[30]

      If you’re after actual journal articles by scientists here are some;

      Here is a review of a book on the topic which summarises a lot of things;

      Google this stuff yourself. Use terms like, ‘human mating strategies’, ‘dual mating strategy’, ‘long-term mating strategy’, ‘cad vs dad’. Names like Buss and Gangestad, Shackelford, Pillsworth and Haselton are well-known in this field for dealing with (at least the foundational aspects) of this topic.
      I’m not going to discuss assumption 1 as I doubt there is anything I could do to prove to you that you are wrong.

      If I referred to other examples of marriage in other cultures that conformed to this underlying schema you would probably just cry “Anecdote! Anecdote!”

      If I then came up with several more examples the cry would be “the plural of anecdote is not data!”

      If I quoted from law textbooks on the legal traditions of the West, or pointed out the recent laws surrounding illegitimacy and fault-based divorce, the cry would be ‘that’s in the past it doesn’t apply now!”

      I would wager that if a scientific survey were done where they examined all known cultures and the rules relating to marriage, that there would be a high correlation between their legal norms and the underlying evo-bio normative schema I’ve described above.

      If presented with such a study I imagine you would then argue that the non-perfect 1 to 1 mapping “clearly refutes my argument!” You are obviously biased and can’t even recognise it.

      All of this is beside the point though. The key terms I used were social-codification. Societies codify their own institutions. It is a (potentially) ever changing phenomenon drawn up through the consent and consensus of those in the society. This social codification is done because it has some utility for those in society.

      What is the utility of having marriage laws based on an evo-bio normative schema? The successful reproduction of the reproducing individuals within that society and hence that society itself (remember, even all homosexuals are born from heterosexuals, not the other way around).

      What is the utility of having marriage laws not based on an evo-bio normative schema? Not hurting the egos of those who don’t abide by such a schema.

      I think the genetic interests of 98% of society outweighs the hurt egos of 2%. (In fact considering that even homosexuals inclusive fitness would be enhanced from the successful sexual reproduction of heterosexuals (homosexuals are borne of heterosexuals and also have brothers and sisters too who are heterosexuals) then it is arguable that it is the genetic interests of 100% vs the hurt egos of 2%.)

      For those who would argue that;

      “if you replaced the word “gay” for the word “black” and the word “straight” for the word “white”? Would you be now against Black men marrying Black women just because they have higher adultery rates? Do you really think that White people would use the excuse of Black adultery as a reason for their own adultery?”

      I would respond with:

      Black males and females are still pursuing mating behaviour underwritten by an evolutionary biological normative schema.

      The fact that you believe this is a counter-example suggests to me that you did not understand the argument or the topics I was discussing, and are just listing off marriage equality talking points.


      July 24, 2016 at EDT am

  5. Cruz rekt:


    July 22, 2016 at EDT am

    • Pence does a much better job of standing behind Trump’s shoulder than Christie did.


      July 22, 2016 at EDT pm

    • Cruz looks and sounds like a hysterical woman.

      He and Mark Levin, another post-hysterectomy fifty-year-old woman, can go cry over “muh constitution.”


      July 22, 2016 at EDT pm

      • LMAO, I am definitely stealing that!


        July 23, 2016 at EDT am

  6. At the end of the speech he was talking about the laws signed by Lyndon Johnson that prevents churches from discussing politics at the pulpit while risking the loss of their nonprofit status. Trump promised to repeal that law and allow proper religious freedom.

    He was certainly not anti-Evangelical in any way. He even named them and thanked them for their support.


    July 22, 2016 at EDT am

    • No one obeys this law anyway. My mainline Protestant church hasn’t explicitly said “Trump is bad” but there has been plenty of “bridges not walls” style rhetoric from the pulpit.

      I assume most Evangelical churches have similar practices even if the political views are different.

      Jokah Macpherson

      July 22, 2016 at EDT pm

      • Trump got the idea from talking to Pastors asking them why the Christian lobby isn’t stronger than it is. Trump says the Pastors told him they are scared to get involved in politics because of the IRS.

        Andrew E.

        July 22, 2016 at EDT pm

      • It doesn’t stop black churches from being a major focus of political organizing and get out the vote drives. Of course, no way is the IRS going to enforce the law with a black church. Getting rid of that law will put white evangelicals on an even footing with black churches. Politically, that will pay off far more down the road that yet another promise on stopping abortion.

        Mike Street Station

        July 22, 2016 at EDT pm

      • Things like that happen often enough but not all the time, at least I don’t think they do… But often enough.

        I assume pastors are informed by their denominations and/or organizations like the Barna Group and whatever books are marketed to them.

        It’s probably easy to want to do charity (or some other perceived good) but get caught up in the wrong methods too.


        July 22, 2016 at EDT pm

  7. You can see by the unhinged reaction of the Left to Trump’s speech that they really don’t care about gay rights, tranny bathrooms or abortions except as status signaling bullshit.

    Anti-discrimination laws are backdoor ways of undermining free speech, association, and religion. Gays, trannies, and slutty women are useful idiots.


    July 22, 2016 at EDT am

  8. “I’m Straight”


    July 22, 2016 at EDT pm

    • Wow, Jerry Harrison (of the Talking Heads) looking girly! Must be the hair.

      July 22, 2016 at EDT pm

  9. I disagree.

    I think the truth is more like Trump has no moral authority do to his womanizing and can’t lead on social issues without looking like a total hypocrite. instead of taking the social issues on directly, he’s going to empower the political wing of the religious right to do its own thing.


    July 22, 2016 at EDT pm

  10. I agree about gay marriage being unnecessary. But it is a great political wedge for the left because even though the majority of Republicans oppose it more out of preserving some dignity to the institution (probably hopeless anyway) than any deep-seated hatred of gays, it’s easy to frame the latter reason as being the true one.

    Jokah Macpherson

    July 22, 2016 at EDT pm

  11. Ignoring the Christian Right may be a good strategy for Trump to win this election, but it isn’t a good strategy for future Republican victories. And all this nonsense about culture wars being a “distraction” is silly. The truth is that both people on the right and people on the left feel strongly about these issues, which is why they are raised and why the country is so divided on them. They involve important issues of family child-rearing, socialization, and religious practice/freedom. They are not at all insignificant. And why should we assume that the nation can’t deal with economic, foreign-policy, AND social issues at the same time? The “distraction” charge really means that liberals want social conservatives to vote Democratic despite the party’s liberalism and socially liberal Republicans want their party to be socially liberal and for social conservatives to just give up.

    Lion is wrong. The Left will never give up. The “bathroom wars” are only the beginning. These people are aiming to remove tax exemption from churches. And at this point we may end up with a lot more violence in America Huge numbers of church-going Americans will take to the streets if this happens.


    July 22, 2016 at EDT pm

    • I do think that the left is dead serious about the social issues, but they’ve won every single one of them, and I’ve no reason to think they won’t continue to do so. If you have a new strategy to reverse that I’m listening, but social issues for the right has been a loser for decades because they are defensive positions. I don’t know how to reverse the tide and I doubt anyone else does either. Instead let’s concentrate on the possible.

      Mike Street Station

      July 22, 2016 at EDT pm

      • Mike, I’m not sure what you mean. You do know that when tax exemption is removed from churches, or a proposal to do this is put forward, the parties will have to take a stand on the issue. When the Left starts advocating the legalization of polygamy the Republican party will have to decide how to respond. There is no way to avoid taking a stand. And taking a stand other than completely supporting the Left’s position will always bring forward accusations of being “obsessed” or “extreme.” Eventually the Left will go too far too fast and experience a real backlash, one worse than what they experienced in the 1960’s. For example, the “open bathroom” policies are already causing incidents of woman and children being harassed in public bathrooms. Gay marriage doesn’t have immediate side effects that hurt average people. But when churches have to start closing due to an inability to pay taxes, there will be hell to pay for the Left.

        In short, we need a Donald Trump of the cultural Right as well as the economic and nationalist Right. Unfortunately, Donald J. Trump isn’t going to be that person.


        July 22, 2016 at EDT pm

      • MaryK, you’re just not paying attention to the campaign. When Trump wins, the 501(c)3 tax exemption language will be removed from the tax code and churches will revert back to their natural state, not tax exempt but tax immune. If the mainstream Protestant churches today were worth a damn they’d claim tax immunity right now and insist on lying completely outside the tax code, like the Catholic and Mormon churches have maintained.

        Andrew E.

        July 22, 2016 at EDT pm

  12. Jettisoning Christianity was a huge mistake for Europe. That heretic social justice Poop of a Dope Pope welcoming Islamic Invaders is a symptom of a larger spiritual emptiness of secular society. Capitalism is just a greedy brother of materialism, and materialism is an empty false philosophy of filling your nest with stuff instead of family. The drastic drop in birthrates across the West is the inevitable result of people accumulating crap instead of forming families.
    This downward spiral of economic disaster is the direct consequence of greed replacing values. People are no longer citizens, they are consumers. Christmas is no longer a holy day its a shopping spree where crazy materialists try to grab the popular crap in wild melees at stores.
    Mankind need higher values. Something to soothe the pain and boredom of life. A reason to persevere and reproduce. Secularism is a nihilistic view. An empty meaningless existence of hedonism and habit, with no values or purpose beyond getting your piece of the pie.
    Nature abhors a vacuum. The Left fills the void with magic, witchcraft, new age spirituality, yoga, tantric orgies and straight up cults like the Maharishi and Scientology. The Right goes to fakers like Jim Bakker and Jimmy Swaggert who promise easy salvation for a donation. The gold fixtures, drugs, booze and hookers are the bling-bling of mass market religion.
    Islam waits in the wings. The empty hearts and sullen souls beckon to the Imams who dream of Global Domination. Allah is now in your prisons, and infiltrating your schools. Its getting elected to government and forming an underground second legal system underneath your noses.
    Mankind has always had religion. Islam sees many potential recruits now that Christianity is being exiled from our culture. You will rue the day you cheered this happening.

    Joshua Sinistar

    July 22, 2016 at EDT pm

    • Great post about Western spiritual (and thus physical death).

      But the problem with Xty is that it suffers from a flabby universalist, sacrificial lamb bent. Easily subverted.


      July 22, 2016 at EDT pm

  13. I love that Trump yelled out his entire speech. The whole time I kept thinking, and I’m sure other people did too, “Imagine if Hillary screeched her way through an entire speech…..” By the end, maybe 50,000 snoozing oldsters and bitter, ugly spinsters would stay tuned in for that. On aesthetics alone, we can’t afford eight years of Shrillary.


    July 22, 2016 at EDT pm

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: