New Exodus, Pharisees; Marxized Christianity

Brief note: My book on the New Israel theological concept is nearly done! Some final editing and cover art is all that stands between me and publishing. 


In the narratives of Ishmael and Isaac, Esau and Jacob, and even the sons of Leah vs the sons of Rachel from Jacob, an interesting dichotomy develops. Who would carry on the family’s lineage and birthright? Who would be primogenitor of the people in covenant with God as promised through Abraham? These events prefigure the dichotomy of Israel vs the Church. Even Jacob himself – a man who had his name changed after wrestling with God – experiences a rebirth into Israel.

What customs were set in place during the exodus? We commonly think of “The Law” as that which preceded the church, but in natural Israel’s context, the law was set in place gradually during the years spent in the wilderness, before Israel actually entered its land of promise. Other norms were established later on during the periods of Joshua and Judges and Samuel, and the legitimacy of a divine kingdom was initially established in Saul, from whom the kingdom was rent and given to David.

Therefore, these events occurred progressively after the Exodus and long period of suffering in Egypt. Likewise, the development of Christianity was in phases after the departure from institutional Jewry by Christians.

The remnant of Israel endured a period sometimes known as the “silent years” between Malachi and Jesus. When Jesus arrives on the scene, much of Israel is waiting for a “prophet like Moses” and an “anointed one” of the seed of David to redeem them according to the prophets. Many of the elites, however, were wired into the Roman empire and lived rather comfortably, provided they gave proper deference to the Romans and maintained the peace on their behalf. Jesus disturbed this arrangement by reinvigorating Messiah movements, many which had arisen in the past and had been summarily crushed.

The parallels to that era’s religious authority and the cabal who controls the choke points of the Vatican now are legion. No wonder that the current Pope is so boisterous about supporting mass immigration and very dovish on attacking the proponents of abortion and eugenics in Europe.



Marxized Christianity, where the truth of Christianity and the civilization it created has been rejected as merely a product of the Enlightenment, is the central axiom of left-wing politics. The most fascinating fact, however, is that they are entirely unaware of it. Most of this post is about left-wing errors, but believe me, I’ll get to the right-wing errors. Catholicism exists on a matrix where neither political camp correctly understands the concept of man, his role, and his dignity. It’s just one side overtly supports infanticide – occasionally that gets mitigated by bloodthirsty warmongers on the right.

Most left-wingers haven’t “discovered religion,” and many reject it on scientific or moral grounds – God could not possibly be against “love”, they say, and “love” is never wrong, or the God of the Bible is as believable as the Spaghetti monster, they say. They are a product of a society that believes that what is “good” is simply intuitive. This is what they mean when they say “love” is never wrong. They define love as what is desired, call it perfect and good, and then claim they are intuitively following some higher morality that is as good or better than Christianity. This is what modern “liberalism” is, and it follows so naturally from being “Classically Liberal” as to be worthy of back-handing anyone who makes great pains to distinguish themselves as a “classical liberal” vs those modern leftist liberals. Humans are tribal and most of us are only intelligent in very narrow ways, if at all. That’s all you need to know to move away from Libertarianism.

Many of these left-wingers have the luxury of western civilization’s frame of reality and safeguards, but they reject the fundamental internal reality – that of God and man’s obligation to obey him – as the weight-bearing pillar of that civilization. Western civilization – America and Europe – is beginning to stretch and bow without that central pillar. All the while, they still believe we have simply not removed enough pillars. That central pillar was just an oppressor that needed to be removed, they say. That central pillar committed atrocities, they say. They do not advertise the atrocities that central pillar prevented, with its supports in Greco-Roman Legal and Philosophical thinking and the intrinsic civic identity of the European nations.

Sometime in the 1960s, the left enthroned a form of liberation theology which naturally filled the void created by enlightenment rationalism, and it became the god and progenitor of every political proposal they put forth. The anesthetic for this operation was the prosperity in the postwar era and the concomitant guilt felt by wealthy, privileged Americans and Europeans, which has been steadily seized upon by the left as a justification for every new social program which was sometimes well-intentioned. The Holocaust and “European guilt” became the central event and concept of human history. Godwin’s law was enshrined by media long before the internet existed, and modern media is Godwin’s law manifested, with daily comparisons to Hitler and the Holocaust wielded against any candidate who doesn’t worship the god known as social justice, who demands self-sacrificial repentance and penance from his subjects to assuage their guilt.

Leftist policy is the essence of “cleaning the outside of the cup,” while inside they are full of greed and self-indulgence. Many leftists claim to care for the poor, but they merely want license for evil under the guise of caring for the poor. They want power and wealth because they believe “correctly” and say the right things, regardless of their actual impact on societal conditions (we’re not to question the intent – if they make regulations that are designed to “help people,” opposing that regulation is opposing their good intentions) – they even guilt minorities who do not respect their “ally” status because they’ve “done so much for them.” They expect credit for intent and orthodoxy, because the real goal is power; political power to wield over others, not actual societal progress. Marxism is to deify political power on the basis of a distorted notion of justice.

We are not allowed to evaluate them based on results, but only intent – those who rail against “white males” and “privilege” are hailed as “woke,” all the while producing zero positive policy changes (with a few rare and likely accidental examples of good initiatives by these people). They immediately jump to the side of anyone who will be praised in the press as “standing up for the poor,” by doing such things as not enforcing immigration laws and demonizing those who propose to do so. More Pharisees, dropping coins from high up into the metal cups of the beggars so it produces the loudest possible ring, and so it is known far and wide how generous they are to the poor.

Do not be confused, dear reader; when I say “left,” I include “Republicans” in the American context who support the proposals of the left with perhaps less stated furor than their Democrat counterparts, but never miss a chance to bow to the left.

The “True Conservatives,” such as Erick Erickson or the rest of them whose politically-themed cruises and large homes are funded by signaling their superior virtue to the world rather than actually having meaningful policy proposals and input on society, may disagree in theory with leftist ideology. Nonetheless, they always reject any means of confronting it as beneath their morals because it requires for them to enter the arena, and everyone in the arena gets their hands dirty. They are thus in a perpetual state of retreat from a civilization-scale confrontation because they have unwittingly imbibed leftist paradigms of Christianity – that of . They are political pacifists.

They are as Judas, who asked “Couldn’t we have sold this Alabaster box and the proceeds be given to the poor”? Let us count the ways this ideology is destructive from a public policy perspective:

“Providing for Women’s reproductive rights”: You, the citizen, will pay for on-demand abortion at any phase of gestation (first implemented by the actual Soviet Union), even when the baby is viable, which is a more radical stance than many European countries who at least outlaw abortions after a certain point. You will endure abortion used as a contraception with celebrities brazenly joking by saying things like “Got a quickie aborsh in case R v W gets overturned.” Babies, to them, are now a “punishment,” not a natural and beneficial consequence of human sexuality. You will be barraged with news stories about how bad babies are for your well-being and how miserable they will make you.

If you are a Catholic hospital who refuses to provide abortions, you will be driven out of operation unless you provide them. If you are a Catholic organization who refuses to pay for abortions on religious grounds, you will have to take your case as far as the Supreme Court to prevent the president – who vowed not to use the ACA to violate religious liberty – from violating religious liberty. You, the citizen, will be maligned if you bristle at paying for someone else’s birth control, even most forms of birth control are inexpensive and over the counter, because women should not be responsible for having agency over themselves and a pittance handout to most women is somehow evidence a politician is “pro woman,” while they define women’s issues solely in terms of abortion and contraception.

You will witness these beasts systemically ignore rape crises in countries directly correlating to mass immigration, and when confronted with them, those with the loudest voices will say “well, they probably would have been raped anyway because men are evil,” in shameless contravention of fact. Narrative and ideology are self-evident to them based on the labels they assign to others based on arbitrary qualities such as skin color or heritage, and no amount of argument can convince them otherwise.

“Providing healthcare”: Healthcare will become a political football to be used against political opponents (as it is perpetually in the UK), with anyone wishing to enforce discipline on a system demonized, as the system becomes unchangeable, costs rise, and quality declines. Yes, there will be death panels.

The worst elements of our current system will be exacerbated by Obamacare or by bipartisan consensus; subsidies and price controls, medicare reimbursement rates, state-state protectionism, banning physicians from publishing prices and limiting HSA access and use. The end result is to limit healthcare’s innovation and expansion economically by guaranteeing “insurance” (a piece of laminated paper you keep in your wallet) for all, which is far removed from actual, punctual, quality healthcare.

Justice in appearance, not in reality; also known to Academia as “Equity,” the distilled essence of Marxist social policy. The appearance is all you need for votes.

“Encouraging homeownership”: You, the citizen, will pay for the massive real estate fallout from getting people into loans they were not qualified for and should not have been permitted to take because *some* racists in the 1950s used redlining and other detestable methods to deny blacks homeownership, and because both parties are inherently married to the international banking system and transnational companies that control the creation of the regulations that were supposed to prevent them from playing with monopoly money to your detriment. You, the citizen, will bear the market dislocations and additional taxes required to push homeownership in an advanced civilization where it is increasingly less important.

“Encouraging college access”: The cost of tuition will be driven up for all while the value of a degree is crushed so everyone can have access to a useless degree they probably shouldn’t have pursued, and the market for other forms of training (vocational, entrepreneurial, military) will be crowded out and mocked, and college will eventually be made “free” to bail out bloated higher education administrations that spend millions of dollars a year trying to push retention and persistence rates up one percent for populations who should not go into higher education. Higher education professionals will continue to support only the politicians that will bail out their bloated, failed bureaucracies that create infantilized 23-year-olds mostly incapable of genuine critical thought and unable to directly interact at an academic level with those who disagree with them.

Brick by brick and line by line, legislators and higher ed professionals will add useless graduation requirements – “Civics Requirement,” “Enhanced Worldview Requirement,” and convoluted initiatives and avoid true innovation and developments in education. They will tinker around the edges while avoiding the necessity for higher ed to be completely gutted and remade.

You, the citizen, will see your male sons constantly vulnerable to merely an accusation of sexual impropriety under Obama-era Title IX interpretation which requires no substantive evidence to ruin or delay their careers, should they associate with the wrong woman who merely regrets a sexual encounter. You, the citizen, will eventually pay the bill as students cease paying their loans, or the only way to absolve your debts to the government will be to serve the government for 10 years (during which most will become faithful governmental voters) after having spent 4 years learning, among some useful things, why you are privileged and racist. You, the citizen, will fund adjunct professors who will unionize – through a union that has literally said “workers of the world, unite” – and lobby their states for pay levels they do not deserve and will diminish the quality of education because they cannot accept that their current skillset is simply not worth the salary they desire.

“Promoting democracy”: The bipartisan agreement on warmongering and foreign interventionism (while always betraying the side that most deserves American support, such as the Serbs, the Kurds, etc.) is long established. It is a bipartisan tradition to overthrow middle eastern rulers and create anarchy or worse conditions in formerly stable (if authoritarian) societies, or, alternatively, arm jihadist rebels to overthrow secular rulers and create long-running, bloody civil wars. You will fund the insurgents that, 10-20 years hence, will salivate at their established prospects for killing Americans using the training we provided.

After we have destabilized other countries, their refugees will pour in and create mass instability, not giving the society enough time to normalize its collective identity and restabilize as immigrants assimilate, as mass immigration is wont and intended to do.

“Promoting diversity”: You, the citizen, will pay for a mass influx of people from a different culture who will fundamentally conflict with your culture and create societal instability – as Aristotle himself predicted, and as the Vandal refugees proved when Valentinian allowed them into his empire.

They will simultaneously crowd out the low-wage American worker and provide transnational corporations with a supply of fresh, abnormally cheap labor. These corporations will fund groups that call you hateful if you point out the massive scale of human and drug trafficking and other evils occurring along the border whose laws are only half-enforced. They will fund the think tanks that breathlessly argue that open borders are phenomenal and the road to prosperity, while enjoying armed security, walls, and top dollar security systems on their own posh campuses.


This promotion of liberation theology concepts has set the stage for the political left to become what it is today: a seething mass of various minorities who hate each other, but are united by one thing: hatred of the legacy of White America. The ones who do not say so are concerned by the radicals on their side, but are complicit with them. These types of “moderate” liberals criticize the “fundamentalism” of social conservatives who are certainly going to ban contraception, erect 50 foot walls covered in barbed wire on the borders, push grandma off a cliff, and round up and electrocute all the gays.

As you may have recognized, many of those are entirely bipartisan endeavors, and others are simply fantasies that somehow percolate in mind of those who identify on the left. To be sure, many on the right have equally ridiculous fantasies about what the “other side” would do if they were elected. It is the bipartisan notions that are the most dangerous, however, specifically because they are likely to occur and actually cause harm, and there is a bipartisan consensus on many of the points of liberation theology which the left (and cuckolded right-wingers, eager to be liked) uses as their base of ideology.

Leave a Reply


You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo


Twitter picture


Facebook photo


Connecting to %s