A tale of two conversions

One from a man named Colin Wright, who seems to suggest that he is still the liberal he always was, but the Left has gone so radical that it pigeonholed him into the right side of the debate.  His breaking point appears to be when he, a scientist, was attacked for insisting the science does lean toward the biological reality of a person informing that person's sex.  

The other is from Mike Lewis, former conservative Catholic and current contributor to Where Peter Is, who has abandoned traditional conservative Christians and Catholics when he realized how wrong they are. I'm not sure I can find a breaking point with Lewis, other than the conservatives who don't agree with Pope Francis and believe Pope Francis upends historical Catholic teaching. 

In some ways, they both make the same basic argument:  It isn't I who left X, but X left me.  

I was going to comment on some obvious differences, but I thought I'd just throw these links out there for now and see what others notice.  I'll toss in my two cents down the road.  

When John Fetterman became the voice of reason among the American Left

You wouldn't have thunk it, would you.  In the first months of his first term in office, Trump's critics were able to get my never-Trumper son to admit that the only thing that makes Trump look good is his critics.  Nothing has changed, despite the shellacking the Left got in November.  It's still pretty much scream Trump Nazi Holocaust with F-bombs and then refuse to do anything else.  

I did arrive at one conclusion after the election.  If you're going to so flagrantly ignore or downplay or mock the suffering of tens of millions just because your guy is the one in the White House, make sure they're not tens of millions of registered voters.  

Nonetheless, though the Obama years marked that  moment when the post-Western Left came out of the closet and made its desires for a post-Western world openly known, it's been rough sailing for them since.  Part of it is, I think, something I noticed some years ago.  Since the Left holds the orb, the scepter and the crown (entertainment, media, education), it's easy to miss its mistakes since none of the institutions that should be speaking truth to power are going to do so when the power is theirs.  So you can make fools of yourselves, fail miserably, and more or less do terrible things and feel it's OK since the traditional outlets charged with calling you out won't do so.  

But that only goes so far.  As we saw in 2016.  As we saw last year.  As sane people are learning, among that number being Senator Fetterman.  As for the rest of the Left?  It's not looking promising.  

At least he is honest

Fareed Zakaria, that oracle of obtuseness, who once declared in 2016 that the world never looked better and we owe it all to the Obama administration even as we were told ISIS was the new normal, comes out of the closet and speaks the words.  He says it's time for Democrats to ditch those working class voters, especially the white ones, who the Dems lost ages ago. Increasingly it's hipster educated professional (read: wealthy) women, minorities and yes, even whites who have flocked to the Dems in recent years:  

"They have a solid base of college-educated professionals, women and minorities. Many of the swing voters who have helped them win the popular vote in seven of the past nine presidential elections are registered independents and suburbanites"

And so: 

"Biden failed to win the working class. Democrats might want to stop trying"

Just stop bothering with those working class types and catch the wave.  Do working class Americans have concerns?  Could they be hurting?  Are they perhaps suffering and need attention?  Aren't they part of that working poor scraping by that the Left has forever cared about? Perhaps.  But  the bigger question is can the Democrats win by giving two flying damns or a hell about them and their problems?  Mr. Zakaria apparently thinks 'no' is the answer to that question.

Yep. Nothing like coming out and saying exactly who it is Democrats shouldn't care about for political expediency.  It's almost like he's suggesting the Democrats never really cared about the working class in the first place, pandering to them only because it was convenient.  

You know, whenever something happens or someone says something, even someone in a religious or non-political setting, journalists often frame it as being the result of politically driven agendas and expediency. As if people can't actually have pure motives because everything must be an ulterior, usually political, motive. It makes me think of the thief who assumes everyone else must be a dishonest crook.  

David Brooks goes crazy

Over at The New York Times and asks the trillion dollar question:

What if we - that is America's modern liberal elites - are the bad guys?  It's an eye opener, though I don't know what to make of it.  We live in an age that doesn't really - care.  That he says what almost anyone sane enough to avoid the modern Left has known for years doesn't really matter if he doesn't follow through.  

Don't get me wrong.  Any step in the right direction is a step in the right direction.  His admission that most of the penthouse liberals' efforts are aimed at keeping them and their families in their penthouses, and at the expense of an ever growing segment of American citizens, at least calls the naked emperor out for what he is.  

"Armed with all kinds of economic, cultural and political power, we support policies that help ourselves … We built an entire social order that sorts and excludes people on the basis of the quality that we possess most: academic achievement. Highly educated parents go to elite schools, marry each other, work at high-paying professional jobs and pour enormous resources into our children, who get into the same elite schools, marry each other and pass their exclusive class privileges down from generation to generation."

He even mentions the suffocating levels of condescending arrogance they possess - though at times doing so in a way that almost seems as condescending:

"It’s easy to understand why people in less-educated classes would conclude that they are under economic, political, cultural and moral assault — and why they’ve rallied around Trump as their best warrior against the educated class”

He doesn't seem to go into the details of liberal ideals, values, agendas and activism.  He doesn't appear to suggest the core of their ethics and beliefs could be wrong, much less the problem.  He simply acknowledges that they all seem geared to making sure those elite liberals end up benefiting from them  no matter what happens to the 'not-them' classes.  Something, again, your average child can see by this point. 

Nonetheless we'll see. I don't think this will cause a Josiah level of repentance. At least it might help those who aren't leftwing thralls realize they weren't crazy for thinking what Brooks finally admits is true. 

The liberalism of my youth versus the Left of my sons' youth

 This was liberalism when I was young: 

America was still great, we were still an inspiration to the world.  Yes, we had our sins, but liberalism was all about making sure everyone was free, equal and could enjoy their rights with everyone else.  That was the gist of liberalism when I was young.  Or the gist as it was popularly presented. 

Contrast that to this:

This is the modern Left.  A sampling.  Many, especially among the young, think of the Swastika and the Stars and Stripes as one and the same.  Life, like truth and reality, is anyone's guess.  Radicalism, violence, hate, rage, and sexing up our kids is only the latest frontier.  And all will conform or face the consequences - in the name of diversity, equity and inclusion. 

I won't apologize for the graphic nature of the photo with the child.  That is going on even as we sit here.  Just as the gay movement was only coming out of the shadows when I was young, and abortion was still a limited affair discussed in the back room of the family gatherings, so we're seeing the beginning of the next stage. .  

If liberalism has taught us anything, it's that the Slippery Slope might be a logical facility, but it's also a historical fact.  What was a fringe outlier promoted by fringe liberals yesterday will be endorsed and mandated in about two generations.  So take a long look at that photo with the child if you want to know what America will be by the time my children are grandparents. 

This is the difference between old liberalism and the modern Left.  How many liberals haven't seen the difference?  How many former conservatives attempt to convince themselves that the liberalism they're joining is form the top image, even as they must ignore, pander to, or even condone more and more from the bottom image?   They will only be able to ignore such things so long before they are given the choice of the prophets of Baal.  

The rise and fall of Eric Clapton

Another liberal icon mauled by leftist tolerance

Old Slowhand.  Growing up in the 1970s and 1980s, there were many different cliques to belong to.  Many different music styles to enjoy.  Many different hobbies and interests to pursue.  But there was one thing that seemed to unite all who grew up in the shadow of the 1960s: Eric Clapton epitomized awesome coolness. 

It's true.  Over the years, his story would change.  He would have ups and downs and suffer tragic loss.  But he was always respected, always admired, and always liked.  In a world filled to the brim with personalities who weren't always the most likeable, Clapton was at least respected, and often spoken well of by his industry. 

But like all that the Left must poison and destroy, that was yesterday.  Today, Clapton hath blasphemed the Leftwing narrative of Vaccine god, and thus the propaganda organs pounce.  The leftist thralls and storm troopers pounce. 

Even Catholics set aside such notions as Christian charity or reaching out to those who are hurting in the world and pounce.

I especially like Mark's definition of rebel which fits like a glove on the modern Left.  After all, the entire rise of the 21st Century Left could be be summed up by saying 'You have heard postwar liberalism say, but the Left now says.'  Which is a roundabout way of saying those principles liberals advocated were a lie.  They only supported rebels against the civilization they sought to destroy.  Now that they have power there will be no more rebels, thank you.  

Or, perhaps another way of saying it: You heard liberals once say we only want a world where all animals are equal.  The Left now says, however, that we must get used to a world where some animals are more equal than others. 

Deacon Greydanus and Mr. Shea appear to be aligning with this global force, perhaps in the hope that it will be those other animals deemed less equal and therefore worthy of the glue factory. Those of us not prepared to throw future generations under the bus would do well to resist that particular temptation. 

If Republicans can't win against this

Then they deserve to lose.  

It's almost vomit inducing to see leftwing Democrats all but piss on suffering Americans, knowing full well the media and cultural corps are firmly in their pockets (or they're in the corporate pockets, not sure which). I was shocked I found the few national stories I found calling this out (most were decidedly conservative or anti-left outlets). 

Fact is, most Americans aren't upset they aren't getting their treadmills since most in 2021 can't afford treadmills.  That's for the upper 1/3 of the country.  Most are seeing their ability to feed their families and afford basic needs for living severally compromised. 

But our elites don't care, any more than they give two swinging damns or a hell about blacks, women, Asians, Hispanics, or anyone for that matter (except the LGBTQ community, which is ever and always sacred, with exception).  When convenient, they care.  When the suffering can't be exploited, let them rot.  

Exactly what New Prolife Catholics will do to fight this snobbery and contempt for the suffering of the least of these - for it is the least of these who are suffering in this - I don't know. I'd like to think this would push them over and force them to call out such flagrant disregard for human needs.  We'll see. 

Brown Sugar banned

Either they were liars or never had stones to begin with

It finally happened.  Took approximately 50 years, but it happened.  The song Brown Sugar, a staple for rock stations because of its rousing introduction - not to mention its suggestive and offensive lyrics (offensive lyrics were all the rage back then) - is being self-censored by the Rolling Stones, that paragon of slavish thralldom to the [Leftist] Machine.

I'm old enough to remember when the Stones, like all rock artists, were cutting edge non-conformity, rebellion against the establishment, and finger in the eye against social norms.   Now, like all who would maintain a life of celebrity and wealth, they are slaves to the whims of the Leftist State.  

When I was in 2nd Grade, our classroom had a record player.  Students were allowed to bring in their singles (singles only kids) of songs that could be played during indoor recess.  There were only two songs specifically named that we were not allowed to bring in: Bad, Bad Leroy Brown, and Brown Sugar.

Of course liberalism was all about putting an end to such puritanical intolerance and judgmental based censorship.  By the 1980s, my college professors were joining the Crusade of St. George Carlin to say the only way to enlightened civilization was the unchecked and unhindered complete freedom of all speech and expression.  As long as you said police person instead of policeman, and African American instead of black. And didn't say retarded or disabled.  Or American Indian.  Or any derogatory term for homosexuality.

But other than those and a few hundred others, it was Brown Sugar and cussing and all manner of blasphemous and vulgar expressions in the name of complete freedom and liberty and enlightenment. Whew.  Thank goodness that's over.  And we have such bold and courageous crusaders for freedom as the infinitely talented Rolling Stones to thank for it. 

The Ninety Foot Idol of the Leftist State

Is a jealous god, and will allow nothing but 100% worship and obedience.  So Salon, one of the left of Lenin rags on the Internet completely devoted to the Leftist State, swoops in to attack various former superstars of the "New Atheist" movement.  Why?  Because such thinkers as Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris have begun  to question the intolerance and thought control of the modern Left.  

Whether it's the Left's invoking the glorious censorship of offensive art and literature, or punishing a scientist who believes boys and girls exist, these former warriors for the secular have begun to question where this beloved leftwing movement they once proclaimed has gone.  They aren't alone of course.  Bill Maher, Stephen Fry, John Cleese - the list is endless of hard left, secular, atheist, or pro-liberal dogma advocates who are nonetheless squeamish about the Red Scare mentality of the New Left. 

The funny part of this?  Behold, the good deacon and film critic Steven Greydanus rushes in on Twitter and gives his thumbs up - to Salon:

Yep.  Note that. His only beef?  Salon's hatred of religion is too broad and could include people like, well,  possibly Deacon Greydanus.  If they narrowed the hate and intolerance a bit to focus on those religious types who are clearly the problem, then this assessment of atheists daring to question the dogmas of the Leftist State would be spot on.  Apparently they are now irrelevant because they dare support those on the Right worried about the totalitarian mentality emerging to the left of center, as opposed to being radical atheists whose atheism was often plagued with problems from a religious perspective.

Of all the Catholic internet stars who have fallen from the firmament, few have done so as quickly or completely as the good deacon.  Few exemplify the necessary belief that the Left will ever and always go after *them* as opposed to me as he does. 

I personally think that is one of the more harmful aspects of the Pope Francis pontificate.  He seems to have sanctioned this idea that we have found the problems of the world, and it's 'those' believers over there.  You know, the rigid ones who do things like apply adjectives to other people.  Though that attitude would be necessary for the 'I'm sure they'll do it to thee, but never to me' attitude that has to be behind such support for what we're seeing today. 

BLM and how liberalism wins every time

 Exhibit A:

Just look at that promotional banner.  True, it could be an editorial or opinion piece instead of an actual news article.  I don't know.  It's becoming more and more difficult to tell the difference.  My limit  for the month was exceeded, so I can't be sure what type of piece it is.  But in looking at its promotional headline for BLM, something dawned on me.  I realized that in almost a year, the national press has yet to report on Black Lives Matter.

Promote, advocate, endorse, and rally for BLM, yes.  It's done that in spades.  But actually report, investigate, analyze?  Not even close.  I attended high school pep rallies that were more objective than the "reporting" done regarding BLM.  For a year the national press, the international press, and hence the international community, has proclaimed BLM to be the gospel incarnate, with only one possible response: complete acceptance and support.  Or else. 

And then I realized that's how liberalism wins.  Conservatives often believe they are right and others are wrong.  Liberals, on the other hand, know they are right and anyone daring to challenge that fact is Nazi.  That's a powerful rhetorical tool, to wade into a topic with the assurance that you incarnate the scientifically indisputable God-truth of salvation and moral infallibility.  And yet they do, and conservatives typically wither and crumble before the assault.

Or conservative immediately find themselves on the defensive, beginning every response with 'now I'm not a homophobe, or I don't hate Asians, or I was appalled at George Floyd's death' or whatever.  Already they've done just what the liberal argument demands - accept the liberal premises.  

Sometimes conservatives will accept certain parts of the premise and the narrative as well.  Of course racism defines America, we admit America was a racist nation, naturally the West was enmeshed in genocide and racism, yes Christians have brutally persecuted homosexuals, of course even the Bible was awash in sexism and discrimination.  Naturally no slaves ever suffered like slaves in America.  Yes, every plantation was a death camp and every cotton field a gas chamber.  This is sometimes done by conservatives of different stripes who can score points against those other conservatives.  Catholics, for instance, love to trot out America as anti-Immigrant racist state when it comes to Americans opposing old immigration from Catholic countries, for instance. 

And speaking of those other conservatives, sometimes conservatives try the old 'not me' approach, beginning a topic with 'sure some conservatives are racist, misogynists, homophobic bigot Neanderthals',  but they certainly aren't.  Again, scoring a half dozen victory points to the liberal narrative and its assumptions before taking their next breath.  When was the last time you ever heard a progressive or liberal begin a debate this way?   All of which helps establish the first part of any conversation as affirming the truth and credibility of the very liberal agendas and arguments those conservatives wish to dispel. 

So it's a powerful thing, dogmatic self-affirmation.  And that's what liberalism does, in all of its institutional forms.  My sons noticed that when thinking about Orthodoxy this year.  We were remembering the times during our sojourn with the Orthodox.  Some day I will have to spell out just why we returned.  There were, after all, many things I found commendable within Orthodox circles.  

One has been their insistence on trying to retain a certain 'Christian cultural discourse.'  That is, trying to keep conversations and basic interactions on a level that one may have encountered all over Christendom centuries ago. 

One thing that they do, for instance, at least in church, is to always great each other with variations of 'Christ is risen', to be followed by 'Truly He is risen.'  The wording changes depending on the season, and always with variations through the season of Pascha.  But we had to get used to fact that they don't just say, "hi Dave', they say, depending on time of year, "Christ is Risen!"  After a bit of time, it got easy to respond accordingly. 

Well, my boys noticed that in their college culture today, that is how most of these issues are addressed.  In most cases, that is how various movements or topics or activism is spoken of, like a dogmatic greeting.  Thus when a student says Black Lives Matter, it is not open for debate, any more than Christ is Risen is supposed to begin a theological discussion.  It is a statement of faith, of unwavering, indisputable, non-negotiable faith.  Black Lives Matter!  Truly Black Lives Matter.

That's that.  That's how you respond.  You don't say 'Gee, while I agree with that sentiment, I...' Stop!  The moment, the second, you don't respond with appropriate dogmatic utterances, you are now the enemy.  You've exposed your racism, your heresy, your blasphemy.  You are now a threat.  You are hate, and are embarking on violence against salvation and sanctification through the Left.  To do anything other than respond with 'Truly Black Lives Matter', or similar responses to #MeToo, Stand With Asians, Fight White Privilege, End Systemic Racism, Stop Global Warming or any one of a dozen similar slogans, makes you the enemy.  Period.  End of statement.  The conversation is over, and the liberal in question now ponders if he should walk away, or are you now a threat needing put in your place. 

And that's powerful.  That sort of zeal and fanaticism will always beat out the person wading into a debate with 'I'm sure I've been wrong before, but perhaps we can come to an agreement.'  It came to this in our society today because the press, educators and intellectuals, celebrities and corporate leaders all embraced the same agendas, making such religious faith statements the cultural ocean in which younger generations swim, to paraphrase Peggy Noonan.  It's been that way for several years, so the kids my sons' age have no way of imagining that there could possibly be another way of seeing things than the way the Left, with its monopoly of our nation's power cells, have proclaimed. 

That is why to question white privilege, America as a nation founded on genocide, racism and slavery, to think boys and girls physically exist, to imagine marriage between a man and a woman, and on and on, would be like hearing someone say 'Remember Pearl Harbor' and responding with 'What about Pearl Harbor?' if you lived in 1941.  It's well beyond the younger generation's ability to fathom that there could be anything other than their statements of faith.  Any more than this NYT headline, or any other article today, has any hope of imagining the leftwing activism it is promoting is anything other than gospel truth. 

What is missing from this definition of censorship

The word "Government",  that's what.  I was unable to find one dictionary that said censorship is only when the government does it.  That, of course, is the excuse of the Left as censorship, like racism, becomes officially endorsed and codified in our country.  

Last year saw 'Equity not Equality' emerge, which was merely a way to officially resurrect racism and racial discrimination.  It says, basically, that seeking a color blind society where all are equal is racism.  The correct way to address ethnicity is to judge, condemn or exonerate based on skin color, and provide benefits or strip benefits based on skin color.  Jim Crow done right.

Now, almost overnight, we have censorship.  If literature, film, art or music offends the demographic group that matters, it must be banned.  And on a point of technicality, it isn't censorship since apparently, as of now, censorship only exists when it's the government passing laws do do so.  Otherwise, it isn't censorship.  It's good ethics.

For me, that's like saying the world is flat.  All my young life, through school and college, in the media and press, it wasn't just the government that could censor.  Censorship started at home.  If we weren't willing to tolerate, respect, and allow for divergent beliefs and expressions, no matter how offensive, we were fascists.  Copious examples were used: a record store owner not wanting to carry Madonna's Like a Virgin album; the old Fantastic Beatles Boycott of the 1960s; a Florida dentist sending video types of Daytime Talk Shows to their sponsors resulting in some sponsors pulling their ads. From professors, authors, entertainers, teachers to news anchors like the late Peter Jennings, nothing said teetering on the edge of Big Brother more that instances like these. 

So once again, we have something that was sacred mantra for me growing up, something repeated a million times a year by our liberal nation as good, that's suddenly bad.  And that which was equally called evil and wrong is now good. 

Judging based on skin color, banning offensive literature or art, suppressing hate speech, violence, imposing values on others, judging others, forgiveness and reconciliation - all of these things are the polar opposite of what I learned from our liberal nation in the 70s and 80s.  As I tell my boys, it's almost as if my whole life I heard liberals say they only wanted a nation where all animals are equal.  Now that the Left has complete power, having won over Corporate America, it now can modify that by saying we must concede that some animals are more equal than others.

Expect the Leftist revolution to go the same way all other revolutions that pull such tricks go.  It won't be pretty.  But we're the ones who let it happen.  Shame on us. 

The Left is the fascism that liberals once warned us about

With all due respect to my former classmate Russ Moore and his oft quoted jab 'The religious right turns out to be the people the religious right warned us about.'  Technically, Russ's observation is not true.  Evangelicals today are what those who stood outside of the Religious Right once warned would happen to Evangelicalism if things didn't change.  That was before Russ and some of his compatriots became the type of accommodating and compromising Christians that Russ and other Conservative Evangelicals once warned us about.

But enough of this parlor game.  The point is that the revolution we call The Left is not liberal at all.  It is hell and gone from liberal.  In almost every way, the Left now embodies everything that liberalism once told us was wrong, evil, dangerous and a threat do life and freedom.  It is now the embodiment of all the McCarthyism and fascism and Orwellian oppression liberals once warned us would spiral into 'a new Naziism' if The Right took over.  We see this happening more and more. 

We see it in the Left's self righteous purging of movies, books, art, religious art and music due to those products' unacceptable messages, or even unacceptable ethnic origins. We see it in the Left's insistence that we must judge and evaluate and even segregate based on a host of demographic labels including, but not limited to, skin color.  We see it as the Left calls for punishment of speech, religious practice and non-conforming activities and exercises that run afoul of leftist dogma.  And we see it in the Left's growing support for, if not championing of, violence, assault and even killing in the name of eliminating those who oppose the Left. 

This last one is the most recent in a long line of stunning reversals on the part of the Left as it becomes more and more what liberalism once stood against.  Assuming that most liberals identify with the Left by virtue of it being the Left and not the Right, it's amazing to see.  When I was growing up, violence was verboten.  From Hawkeye Pierce to Phil Donahue, from Ghandi to Atticus Finch, you show me a man who would stand by and not lift a violent finger for any reason at all, and I'd show you a man lifted up to near Jesus levels of adoration and praise by liberal culture of the day.

That's because violence was always, always, I mean always, and I'll say one more time always, wrong.  It was never justified.  It was never excusable. From spanking to war to the death penalty to even violent self-defense, violence was never the answer. Those prepared to go like sheep to the slaughter rather than resort to violence, even in self-defense, were the greatest.  Even non-Christians and atheist liberals I knew were willing to tip their hat to the Jesus story, even if they didn't believe it, due to its peaceful, non-violent messaging.  From teachers and professors, to news stories and movies and television and books and even rock songs, peaceful nonviolence was the only acceptable option. 

But that was then.  That was before the dark times.  That was before the revolution we're witnessing before us that is dedicated to dismantling the Christian Faith, Christian civilization, the Christian West and the American experiment and their high ideals of equality, liberty and the pursuit of happiness these traditions brought to the world.  

Of course the linked story is just one professor, known apparently for some pretty wacked out radicalism and intolerance. But it's not new, it's not just him, and it's picking up steam.  We're seeing it in the justification of the violence, death, arson and destruction perpetrated by Antifa and Black Lives Matter.  We have seen it since 2016 as professors, scholars and journalists excused violent protests and physical threats by those outraged by the 2016 election. Almost overnight, violence has joined a growing stack of actions once cherished by liberalism, now being tossed out the window by the Left.  And we're seeing things liberals once warned against as the the most evil and unforgivable sins imaginable being sanctioned and celebrated; in some cases by those same old liberals. 

When 'Whites Only' became a thing again

Yep:

Someday the spirits of Germans from the 1930s and Southerners from the 19th Century will rise up and condemn our generation.   Had they known what we know, they never would have done what we're doing.  

Us?  We will have no excuse.  We're too educated for it to be idiocy.  It's likely cowardice and apathy and narcissism and a general lack of faith wrapped, as it often is, in the cloak of righteousness and moral superiority. 

Good for him

Jack Denton, who was a member of Florida State University's student senate, was thrown out because of his Catholic Faith.   He was caught expressing his Faith's beliefs as they relate to BLM and other issues, such as sexuality.   Because he expressed those in a private chat, it was discovered and he was ousted. 

I have no idea about the details or the legalities.  I don't know if the student senate can secret police its members and dismiss them because of their religious beliefs or not.  I just know this is helpful in exposing the death of American liberalism.   

Remember, "the Left" is still associated with liberalism, and the two are often mentioned in the same breath.  I know I've done it.  Most I know who are on the Left prefer 'liberal' to describe their positions.  And yet, this sort of inquisition Mccarthyism is hell and gone from what liberalism has insisted it was all about since the early 20th century.  In fact, liberalism was the antithesis of this. 

Everything we're seeing that is being promoted by 'the Left' in the 21st Century is what liberalism once condemned and fought against.  Consider how my whole life I heard 'it's wrong to judge, It's Wrong to Judge, IT'S WRONG TO JUDGE!'   Now look at what we're doing to anyone who doesn't conform to the Left's dogmas.   Look at the judgmentalism needed to destroy them memorials, statues and tributes to Americans from generations gone by.  The same thing with the all important concepts of tolerance, diversity and respecting diverse opinions and beliefs we heard liberals talks so much about for all those years. 

Warning flags should go up when a movement that spent nigh on a hundreds years insisting it only wants a nation where all animals are equal suddenly insists we must begin acknowledging that some animals are more equal than others.  Whatever happens with this lawsuit is beyond me.  But it should be one more in a growing pile of warning signs about the country we're becoming; a country this 'Left' wants to be. 

Remember when Christians were told that converting people from other religions was evil?

Yeah, so do I.  I remember it well, because it was one of the Uber-issues when I was growing up in the 70s and 80s, and even into the 90s.  Almost every other movie, at least one episode in a television show, and not a few pundits, journalists, professors and most moderate and liberal Christians made it clear that evangelizing other people, pushing your religion onto others, and getting them to convert to your own religion was like saying they were wrong - and that's EVIL!

Well, in #89057889437593879 of cases where the modern Left is what old post-war liberalism said was evil, we have the religion of atheism boasting on helping pastors renounce the faith and join in with the belief of atheism.  They're quite proud, too.  In short, they're doing what Christian evangelists and missionaries used to do back in the day.  Actually, they're doing what they themselves said was evil and wrong when religious people (esp. Christians) did it.  They are proselytizing believers into the faith of atheism.

Of course like most things, we should see now that liberalism was a scam.  It was never true then.  Asd I told a Jewish friend once - who echoed the idea that telling people their religion is wrong is bad - the idea that a religion telling other religions they are wrong is bad is essentially telling that religion it is wrong. Which, if I'm following you, is bad. That led to a pretty intense discussion let me tell you.

Same with freedom of speech except that which offends feminism, or never imposing your values on others, except where homosexuality is concerned.  The list is endless, including being upset that people wouldn't support pop star Madonna using a microphone like a sex toy on national television since that's censorship now insisting we need to have the government step in and censor offensive ideas and speech.

Nope, liberalism was a hot lie. And a disastrous one.  It has reinvigorated old racism and bigotry for new people groups, convinced people tyranny and oppression will be good because it will only be those people over there who get it in the neck, and is pushing the boundaries of the genocidal attitudes of the last century, not to mention the carnage of the sexual revolution and destruction of the Christian West at the hands of other societies almost itching to step in and take over. 

And yet Pope Francis insists that trying to proselytize people to Christianity is a bad thing, and joins most Christians today who believe the same thing.  Dumb.  Either that or cowards who are going to go along with whatever to stay in the good graces of the majority currents.  That's the only way you can insist that following the dictates of the modern left is the only way to live out the Christian life as it should be.  If not, then it's time we reclaim so much of what of the Gospel of Christ has been lost over the last several generations.

J.K.Rowling and the leftist Wizard hunts

J.K. Rowling is nothing if not goofy.  As my sons - my resident Potter fans - once said, you could tell when she went from writing delightful children's stories to attempting to produce the epic of the ages.  Largely because she wrote within the fishbowl of Pottermania and the growing HP Inc. Corporation, her novels quickly became 'How to have a series end as bad as it looked like it would when Harry died to save humanity without killing our Brand Icon.'  As a result, the later novels are often bloated, tiring, convoluted and, quite frankly, dull.   The Goblet of Fire, per my sons, is the turning point where you can see the works pander more to the Corporate and fan base interests than the original story line.  My second oldest said it best when he said she ended up building a fantasy universe too large for her skills and talents to fill.

Anyhoo, as a fair children's book author, she nonetheless showed herself to be rather keen at tapping into the fanboy fan base culture at the dawn of the global Internet market.  Thanks to the GIM, even the most worthless piece of crap produced can rake in a hundred million dollars.  A little better than crap and you can have hundreds of millions in global revenues.  Get a name for yourself, and even your limpest efforts can produce sales that would have made The Beatles blush.

You must be careful, however.  Seeds planted in firm liberal soil today can choke you with leftist thorns tomorrow.  In those ancient of days, for example, before the ascension of the radical Left to global prominence, she had to contend with the possibility of backlash from the Conservative Christian front.  How did she handle this?  Easy.  She insisted, in addition to there ever and only being seven books about Harry Potter, that she was a down home Christian girl herself, and the final book was going to be awash in Christian themes.  She couldn't say how - that was secret.  If she spoke too much of her religion, it would give away the ending.

When the day of reckoning came, and Deathly Hallows was released, it was easy to see the rather blatant Christian imagery she utilized, from grave markers to the obvious death and resurrection motif.  That made all those Christian Potter fans say, "See!  Told ya!".  Mark Shea declared the Potter series a complete unpacking of the Passion Narratives.  Any criticism or curiosity about things like the series' consequentialist tendencies was met which charges of being an idiot or not spiritual enough.  This was, remember, the fantasy fan-boy fan base - Christian or otherwise - which Rowling seemed to understand so well.

Nonetheless, to avoid alienating the non-Christian/leftist fans who picked up on her more liberal themes of individualism, down with authority, and diversity based on liberal principles, she blurted out, a day or so after the book's release, that Dumbledore was, in fact, gay.  What?  Where was that ever said?  Did anyone reading the books ever conclude that?  But before those important Christian fans (of which there were many) lost faith in the gospel of Potter, she turned on her heals and insisted that Dumbledore never actually did anything physical about it.  Huh?  What does this even mean?

It meant nothing of course.  She was merely throwing out whatever to keep the sales going and the rather diverse global fan base happy.  She was finding ways to talk out of all sides of her mouth.  In those days, many of the Christians who were Potter fans (who would eventually become full-blown leftists) were not leftists yet.  And the thought of injecting homosexuality into kids' books would have caused problems.  But in the face of the growing anti-Christian sentiments of the leftist fan base, her constant appeals to this or that Christian theme or imagery was also bothersome.  She did what she had to do.

But over the years, her talents for just about anything - including writing - have come into serious question.  Her wading into the issues of the day shows that she spends about as much time thinking on the issues of the day as Lewis or Tolkien (the ones she was constantly compared to) likely did about whale gutting in the arctic.  But whereas Tolkien and Lewis were geniuses in their fields, as well as profound thinkers about other subjects such as mythology, religion and ethics and the field of fantasy literature, Rowling comes across as a rank amateur at best.

So now, in the wake of the Left's growing anti-"cis" White witch hunts, despite all attempts to be as diverse as possible, Rowling has been charged with not being diverse enough.  By that, the leftist lynch mob means Harry and the main characters were white and not having sweaty gay sex, and that's all they need to know.  To counter this juggernaut, Rowling has done what her meager abilities and insights on such topics allow, and that's come out with more incoherent ramblings.  She's tried to insist that in her world, all things gay and diversity dominate the Hogwarts universe - it's just a small microcosm of nasty cis-white people happened to be in the middle of the stories.

Ten years ago that would have flown, no matter how lame. The Left (and Christian fans) would have felt compelled to accept such dribble, even though they knew it was dribble.  But not now.  The leftist mob is now comfortable in its power and belief that, after a few more election cycles in America and abroad, it will finally have the power it wants to exterminate all who fail to conform to its demands.  Simply rolling out some weird 'trust me (wink, wink) it's there' won't cut it.  If you don't openly and loudly denounce Christians, Conservatives, Whites, Men, Heterosexuals, non-conforming Minorities, Americans and anyone else deemed an enemy of the Leftist State, while celebrating the latest leftist dogmas, you're in for it.  No amount of BS or wiggle room with stupid and transparent bilge will do.

I must admit, there's a bit of guilty pleasure I feel in watching the growing number of old and older liberals being consumed by the raging flames of the Millennial socialist and leftist wildfires.  These Frankenstein monsters the Left created are pure ideologues.  They will not put up with old word drool and politics as usual and talking points that score a few runs here or down the road.  They are armed with torches and swords, and have every intention of destroying anything and anyone that doesn't live up to their latest daily standards.  And that might even include each other.

The old Boomer liberals, or even leftists of my generation, might have been content with obvious BS that could advance the leftist agenda, but not these  youngsters.  They are pure dog soldiers for the Left.  You either brazenly fall into line with the Left 100% of the time, or it's the torch.  That will not only include any books, movies, shows or art deemed retroactively unacceptable, but it will also include those individuals and groups deemed past their sell by date and no longer of any use to the leftist Cause.

The emergent Left is evil

It is to liberalism what the neo-Nazis and white supremacists are to conservatism.  It peddles in racism, sexism, bigotry; spews hatred and contempt; it apologizes for evil, assaults and violence; and does so in order to prop up a political revolution that promises unending slaughter and death for debauchery and narcissism in return for a police state tyranny.

Which leads us to Stephen Colbert, the emergent Left's most prominent mouthpiece.  Faithful Catholic that he is, he never fails to be outside of even the most partisan news organizations when it comes to jockeying for the emergent Left.  When almost all pundits and news anchors were lamenting the suffering of both Dr. Ford's and Brett Kavanaugh's families, Colbert openly mocked Kavanaugh's supposed outrage, utterly ignoring any impact the circus had on his wife and children.

Now, as conservatives are mobbed and intimidated and even attacked for merely stepping outside their home or eating at a restaurant, Colbert makes sure he does his part to minimize the problem and mock those who might be the next targets of some crazed leftist zealot.  If any are hurt or, worse, killed by such extremist violence, their blood is on the hands of the likes of Colbert.  It's a standard that has been applied to conservatives, so it has to be true for him.

1700 US Lawyers disavow due process

The future of our democracy is looking bleak.  The WSJ notes the development.

The Stalinizing of Papa John's continues

So it's official.  Papa John's will erase the image of Founder John Schatter from all logos.  This from the outcry that came about due to his criticism of NFL players who protest the National Anthem his use of the Word Beloved of Rap Stars Everywhere.  He, having white skin, cannot use the Word Beloved of Rap Stars Everywhere, even if to illustrate a point.  Those who have dark skin may do so with impunity.  It's all about the race, as MLK used to say.

This is the world we live in.  With no real power, the Left is making it clear what kind of country it will be when they have power.  Of course this was mostly about Schatter's criticism of the NFL's anti-anthem protests.  Since he was a visible and well known corporate leader (think Dave Thomas or Harland Sanders), we couldn't have him speaking against the Leftist agenda.  It was only a matter of time before he made a mistake.  Or spoke in a way that could be spun as a mistake.  Or simply existed while not conforming to the Left.

Since Marx had little use for things like mercy or forgiveness, and much of the modern Left echoes, if somewhat wearily, the ideals of Marx, we shouldn't be surprised that we've reverted to the very kind of witch hunt mentality that liberals of old once decried as emblematic of the tyrannies Marx helped build.

FWIW, I will never eat at Papa John's again.  I was never a fan.  Nonetheless every now and then its pizzas scratched a certain itch.  But no more.  Whether because of cowardice, or simply the growing sense that Madison Avenue would gladly go Communist and bury the Church and America if that's where the money is, I don't know.  But either way, when I think of Papa John's now, I'll think of nothing so much as this:

What rule of law?

So a California judge has been removed because he ruled according to the dictates of the case.  Let me begin by admitting that I am no lawyer.  I know no more about the law than what I picked up watching Matlock with the sound off.  I'm not a legal expert.  I have no idea about legal stuff.  But here is what I noticed.

Many experts - and I mean many - were extremely bothered by the thought of removing the judge over this decision.   Legal experts who were men, women, liberal, conservative, pro-#MeToo - you name it: they all said this is a dangerous precedent.  Those who supported his removal? I couldn't help but notice that the bulk of them appealed more to emotional arguments. There was little talk about whether it was legally appropriate.

And yet, the second group won.  Just as, during the Roy Moore campaign, we watched our nation and its media power players embrace the idea that evidence and due process are for the courts, but outside of the courts your arse belong to us, now we're seeing it creep into the courts.  Right now, women are getting what they want, no matter the long term cost.  Les Wexnor would be proud.

If you're paying attention and looking at the forest rather than the trees, you'll notice that we're fast approaching the greatest threat to our freedoms and equality that our nation has experienced since its founding.  We're literally working to frame our nation as one based on witch hunts and lynch mobs, roaming the internet, going back decades to find something you said or did, pushing back against the need for due process and presumption of innocence, making it clear that liberty does not belong to those who do not conform to the Left.  All of these are where we are, not where we are going.  If we don't do something about it, it will only get worse.