How God Judges Intellectuals
In 1917, Sinclair Lewis wrote his book The Profits of Religion. It was his way of exposing how religion could be manipulated by grifters to exploit people’s fear and guilt for financial gain. The United States has long been fertile ground for new cults that prey on those desperate for answers about life, even if those answers are incoherent. These cults have often attracted people willing to pay large sums of money and even join communes with plural marriages. Perhaps my favorite of Lewis’ books is Elmer Gantry, especially with its marvelous film adaptation starring Burt Lancaster. In the story, we see how a charismatic salesman can use religious revivals to make money. When Elmer is asked how he knows God exists, he famously replies, “because I’ve seen the devil many times.” As viewers, we can’t help but wonder if he is actually speaking about himself.
Now, roughly 100 years later, Matt Walsh has created a modern version of this exposé with his work Am I a Racist?, where he traces the money made by DEI (Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion) experts and anti-racism consultants. I don’t intend to excuse those who fall victim to such schemes, whether in cults or in today’s movements. People should exercise their God-given ability to think critically. But I want to focus on the grifters themselves, showing how this phenomenon is nothing new, and yet, somehow, we fail to learn from history.
In the last 15 years, we’ve witnessed a takeover of American universities by a new cult, one that is grounded in anti-racism and DEI initiatives. Unfortunately, this problem is not limited to secular institutions. Many private Christian universities have also fallen prey to this aberrant belief system. To call it a cult is to recognize that it mimics the themes of Christianity but changes their meaning, offering a cheap counterfeit. Cults, it seems, thrive in environments where critical thinking has been neglected, and in that sense, they serve as a judgment on society. These cults waste resources, destroy communities, and erode intellectual life.
What makes this phenomenon particularly fascinating is that the professors who have bought into this cult are the very same people who tend to look down on religion with condescension. They pride themselves on being the most educated, considering themselves the smartest people in any room. They love accolades from one another, hosting wine and cheese gatherings where they discuss the latest published ideas. In their minds, they are the intellectual elite. In today’s university, professors come and go, talking endlessly of Robin DiAngelo.
How did this particular group of Americans get so easily converted to such an obvious scam? To an outside observer, their words often seem nonsensical, and yet, they take themselves very seriously. This is a clear example of God humbling the so-called wisdom of this world. We can identify five important lessons this teaches us, lessons that also point toward a solution.
First, if we were to name this age in the way that previous eras have been named (like the Age of Reason or the Age of Anxiety), we might call it the New Dark Age. The intellectual life of our time focuses on the base and the perverse. I’m particularly aware of what’s happening in the humanities departments of universities. These are supposed to be the scholars who study the human condition at the highest level, yet they can’t even tell you what the good is. Some of them might not even recognize the phrase “the good,” and if they do, they may think it’s an outdated idea from Plato.
How can anyone claim to study the human condition without knowing what is good for a human? This should be the first question asked in any job interview for a humanities professor: “What do you believe is the good?” If the candidate cannot provide a clear, truthful definition in one sentence, the interview can end right there. After that, the candidate should be asked to defend their view of the good by refuting alternative views, and finally, they should give an example of how they would teach introductory students to understand this concept.
If a humanities professor can’t do that, nothing else they know will be of any use. Without a firm understanding of the good, everything they teach will be misdirected, harmful, or even evil. And further, they won’t be able to guide their students toward their highest purpose in life.
It was into this intellectual vacuum that the Anti-Racism DEI cult emerged. The humanists weren’t all pursuing the good and then suddenly switched to this new ideology. Rather, they had already neglected their duty to seek and teach the good, leaving themselves wide open for this new belief system to take root. This, I believe, is how God judges societies—especially those who think themselves wise. What they believe to be wisdom is, in reality, utter foolishness.
Second, what these humanists had been teaching before the rise of DEI cultism was already rooted in Marxism. Today, if you suggest that someone—be it a politician like Kamala Harris or a university professor—is a Marxist, they’ll often laugh and say, “This isn’t the 1950s.” But ask them what they believe about history, and they’ll start reciting ideas straight from the Communist Manifesto: history is a conflict between oppressors and the oppressed, owners and workers. The Neo-Marxists of today have broadened this conflict to include categories like religion, race, and culture.
Many secular university professors grew up in nominally Christian households but have since grown to despise Christianity. Thus, the Neo-Marxist approach suits them well. Whenever they discuss oppression, it always seems to circle back to Christianity as the primary source. At first, they may say “white men” are the oppressors, but when pressed, it becomes clear that the real target is white Christian men. Having already apostatized from their childhood faith, these intellectuals were ready for a new belief system to replace it. Marxism fit the bill perfectly.
Third, although these intellectuals have abandoned Christianity, they still have a need for meaning in their lives. Cults prey on this deep need. Marxism is essentially a Christian cult for atheists, one that mimics the structure of Christian doctrine but empties it of its true meaning. It offers a hollow and despairing vision of life.
In the Anti-Racism cult, for example, you are taught about original sin—“whiteness.” Whiteness is embedded in society, and those who possess it are often unaware. Only an anti-racist preacher can reveal it to them. Once revealed, however, there is nothing they can do to rid themselves of it. Whiteness, they are told, is the root cause of suffering in the world; it is the problem of evil.
Next, there is a need for atonement. Payment must be made for the sin of whiteness. While no individual can fully atone for it, they must try. White male Christians, in particular, are told to acknowledge their sin, repent, and perform acts of penance. This involves “doing the work,” staying silent, listening, feeling the pain they’ve inflicted on others, and “taking a back seat.” How long will this take? Indefinitely—until the oppressor-oppressed dynamic is fully reversed. It’s no longer just about individual actions, but a deep-seated, systemic reversal that is demanded.
If you ask, “Are we really talking about people living in 21st-century America, where most of us enjoy relative comfort compared to any other time in history?” you are missing the point. This isn’t just about today; it’s atonement for the last 500 years. You may never have engaged in racism personally, but as a white male Christian, you are guilty by association with your ancestors, and you must pay for their sins.
The Anti-Racism movement taps into a deep human need to explain evil and find meaning, especially among those who have rejected traditional Christian theodicy. While Christianity teaches that suffering entered the world through sin and will one day be eradicated through Christ, Anti-Racism reduces all suffering to economic oppression caused by systemic racism. Suffering isn’t seen as spiritual or metaphysical, but material and external.
These answers are philosophically vacuous. They are grounded in materialism, albeit sometimes mystical materialism, that offers the individual no hope. They are conflict theory and understand all of life as a conflict between humans over limited resources. As materialists, they are reductionistic. They cannot account for the origin of matter, the human soul, or the transcendent meaning of life. It is clear to reason this system is false but the problem is these are not persons using reason to critique their own beliefs.
The Anti-Racist worldview encourages resentment and hatred, particularly towards white male Christians. In Am I a Racist?, Matt Walsh shows how the movement peddles envy, feeding on the perception that someone else’s success or comfort is the cause of your suffering. If that person is a white male Christian, then they are to blame, and this mindset nurtures a vicious, destructive character.
Here, we see a clear divergence from historic Christianity. The Gospel teaches that we are all sinners, that we have hated our neighbors in many ways, and most gravely, that we have hated God. It also teaches that Christ’s atonement on the cross is the only payment sufficient to redeem us. Unlike the works-based righteousness of the Anti-Racist movement, the Christian message is one of grace. Through Christ, we are reconciled to God, and through grace, we are empowered to live lives that glorify Him.
Cults, by contrast, rely on endless work. Even though the efforts of the white male Christian in the Anti-Racism movement won’t bring about real change, they are expected to try, and the cycle of penance and guilt never ends. The “work” is an empty ritual, devoid of the true forgiveness and reconciliation offered in the Gospel.
Fourth, cults like the Anti-Racism movement prey on those who are weak-minded, neurotic, and impressionable. While we can’t excuse those who fall for such movements, it’s clear that many who subscribe to Anti-Racist ideology are struggling with deep-seated guilt. But this guilt stems from their sin against God, not their social identity or privilege. Tragically, in their search for absolution, they turn to false promises of salvation offered by cult leaders, rather than the true redemption found in Christ.
The problem with these cults is that they are doomed to failure. They flourish briefly, like weeds, but ultimately, they wither and are cast aside. The righteous, by contrast, are compared to a tree planted by streams of living water, always bearing fruit, even in old age. Professors who fall into this Anti-Racism cult begin with zeal, but as they grow older, they become bitter and cynical. I’ve witnessed this firsthand in academia—the initial excitement fades, and they are left with nothing but empty promises and a wasted life.
It’s the classic tragedy of the sinner. You might feel sympathy for them, but if you extend a hand to help, they lash out in anger. In many ways, we are all like this before Christ redeems us, but there are distinct patterns among those drawn to cults: their rejection of the good, their atheism or apostasy, their desperate search for meaning, and their crippling sense of guilt.
Fifth, we are not powerless. We can act to root this cult out of the academy. Secular universities need not be anti-Christian. These institutions are places where we should be studying general revelation, the works of God that reveal His nature. Christians invented the university system for this very purpose—to learn about God’s creation and glorify Him through our intellectual pursuits.
Parents, students, taxpayers, donors, legislators, and pastors all have a role to play in holding professors accountable for the content they teach. Do these professors truly understand the good, or do they only think they do? Socrates once overturned the wisdom of Athens by asking similar questions to those who thought they were wise. It’s time we do the same within the universities of today.
It’s perfectly reasonable for a student to ask their professors whether they will be promoting Anti-Racism, LGBTQ+ ideologies, or other modern movements in their classes. Most professors may claim they aren’t, but it’s important to learn to recognize when they subtly are. Asking them straightforwardly, “What is the chief end of man?” is a good way to start.
Our chief end is to glorify God and enjoy Him forever. This can be done regardless of wealth, race, or background. No one can take away the knowledge of God from you.
Consider Psalm 73, where Asaph speaks of envying the wealthy. He observed that they live lives of ease, seemingly free of hardship, with followers who admired them. They indulged themselves without consequence, and Asaph, who had been faithfully seeking God, found himself wondering why he suffered while they prospered.
But then Asaph went into the sanctuary of God, where he saw the animal sacrifices being offered. He saw the high priest take the blood of the sacrifice into the Most Holy Place and sprinkle it on the Mercy Seat. There, Asaph learned the Gospel. He recognized his sin and realized that he had been behaving like a brute beast, envying the material success of others while neglecting his own need for redemption.
Asaph’s mind was elevated from the material to the spiritual, and he understood that his sin was not against man, but against God. He also understood the offer of atonement through the death of another, and he looked forward to the One who would die in our place.
Conclusion
The rise of the Anti-Racism and DEI movements within universities reflects a broader cultural drift away from a foundation in truth and reason, as seen through the lens of classical theism and Christianity. These ideologies, masquerading as moral crusades, offer a shallow counterfeit to the profound teachings of Christianity on sin, atonement, and redemption. Where Christianity calls for an acknowledgment of universal sinfulness and the hope of grace through Christ, the Anti-Racism cult offers only perpetual guilt and unachievable atonement through endless works and penance.
We are left with a pressing challenge: to reclaim the university as a place of true inquiry into God’s works, rather than allowing it to remain captive to destructive ideologies. Students, professors, and all those involved in the academic world must not shy away from asking the most important questions about the nature of the good and the purpose of human life. These questions, properly answered, direct us to the knowledge and love of God, which alone can bring lasting meaning and peace.
Christians must recognize this as a moment of cultural and spiritual urgency. The answer lies not in retreating from intellectual engagement, but in robustly defending the truths of Christianity and classical theism. As history has shown, false ideologies will wither in time, but the truth of God will endure. Our chief end, as the Westminster Confession reminds us, is to glorify God and enjoy Him forever—a truth that no worldly ideology can take away.
Anti-Racism is not the first cult America has faced, and it won’t be the last. It is unique in that it targets the intellectual class, those who pride themselves on their supposed wisdom. But there is hope. If you’ve been caught in this cult, you can break free. If you are a student, be aware that you will likely encounter this ideology during your academic career. Recognize it for what it is: the humbling and shaming of those who think themselves wise but speak against the Word of God. And know this—God does not hold guiltless those who take His name in vain.
Be watchful. Fear God. If you neglect your God-given ability to think critically, you too could become captive to these modern cults. Seek God while you are young and keep His commandments. A university education should cultivate a fear of God and develop moral character. It should lead students astray. Don’t settle for less.
Image Credit: Unsplash
What seems off in the above article is that, besides begging the question on Marxism, a lot of generalities are used with few, if any, details to back them up to amorphously describe a movement as not just being monolithic, but being a cult too. And why didn’t he call the current Republican Party, with its heavy allegiance to a narcissistic and authoritarian leader like Donald Trump, a cult.
We could look at the history of Christendom to see why some would have a negative view of white Christian males. That history includes religious wars, world wars, racism, sexism, colonialism, imperialism, classism, and inquisitions just to name some of the practices that took place under the banner of Christendom. And so when victims of all of those isms complain, isn’t it understandable why some would make some overstate their claims about white males? But to dismiss a decentralized movement because of some of its faults is, itself, an overreaction. Perhaps Anderson wants his audience to reflexively reject everything they hear from DEI, Marxists, and Neo-Marxists. That wanting people to reflexively reject or accept what someone or a group says is an authoritarian trait that is a trait of a cult leader.
We should note that every large enough movement has its prophets for (personal) profits figures. Today’s conservatism has its own prophets for (personal) profits and one can hear some of them in some of the talk radio shows. But again, is that a legitimate reason for one to reflexively reject all that Conservatives say?
What I would like to know from Anderson are the specifics of DEI that he can agree along with other specifics with which he disagrees.
Finally, Kamala Harris is a Marxist? Really? Reading that claim about her makes me want to ask Anderson what his definition of a Marxist is. I lean toward Marx politically speaking. And in absolutely no way would I classify her as one who even leans towards Marx, let alone be a Marxist. If it wasn’t for the threat that Trump poses to our democracy and the anti pro-life positions he takes, I would be voting for a 3rd Party candidate for President this election as I did from 2004 through 2016.
Im convinced Curt Day is an AmRef staffer who has created an online persona in order to get sane Christians to post in the comment section of each article.
Clint,
As much as I oppose what Am Ref stands for, you gave me a very nice compliment. Thank you.
Hi Curt, choosing to engage today because I just took my High School senior boys to visit a University Campus this past weekend.
I think ‘begging the question on Marxism’ would actually be supporting Marxism in a circular manner, but I know that’s not what you meant. If your suggesting that Americans, rooted in our country’s history, shouldn’t automatically conclude that capitalism is better than marxism (or socialism/communism), I think that’s a stretch. Definitely not something that Mr. Anderson should have to spend any time explaining to this general audience (yourself as a documented exception).
My boys and I talked a lot about our responsibility in voting. We all will be voting for Trump, not out of any allegiance to him, but definitely in support of our country and our understanding of who best will support the Constitution and Declaration. Terms like ‘cult’ are difficult for me, because no one ever admits to belonging to one. Growing up, it was a term used for the Mormons, JW’s, and Scientologists. As a Christian, I believe everything is under Christ, so my patriotism, my affection for city/state, even my sports fandom are not cult-like. Without Christ, adherence or devotion to anything takes on cult-like qualities. Non-believers are no less citizens, however I recognize that their loyalties are ultimately anti-Christ (or instead of Christ) which is a wide road to destruction.
As for DEI, and perhaps even your politically marxist leanings; the issue I have is that instead of a country, a state, a city, a business or even a church leading by example and showing how DEI (or Marxism) has improved the organization and the lives of the people within it, all the rhetoric (including your laundry list of negative Christendom) still does not make your alternative more attractive. There is not a better country, with more opportunity IN THE WORLD, than the USA. That is a function of our system, not a flaw. No church is perfect (especially if I go to it), but I don’t see anywhere in the world worshiping Jesus as freely as here.
As for my working definition of Marxism – I got it from Hillsdale. Marxism = All human relationships are defined in terms of the systemic oppression of one group by another. From personal experience…my greatest oppressor has been myself; living for myself, putting myself before God and others, obeying my appetites and the temptations of Satan rather than following Jesus. Today, my family and I follow Jesus…and we believe that voting for Trump in this election is the best way to protect that way of life in the spirit of Micah 6:8. Be Blessed. ~ John
John,
Thank you for your respectful and rational response. Sending the kids to college is a big change for the parents. I remember when we dropped off our son, the youngest of our 2 children, at college. I told the wife that because I didn’t want to go home right away that we should go see a movie. As for our daughter, I remember going to her graduation and thinking that it seemed like it was just yesterday that we brought her to her freshman year.
DEI is more-less a horizontal movement among businesses and institutions. And so to answer your question on whether it has benefited anyone, surveying those who work in businesses and institutions would be the first step. The question is for those opposing DEI is this: which group(s) are they leery of including as being equal in the workplace and society.
As for Marxism, it isn’t enough to recognize that there has always been people oppressing people. After all, a brief survey of human history and observing how man’s inhumanity to man on so many levels in so many cases provides sufficient evidence to say that the oppression of some group has always been a major part of life for many.
Marx was specific about the oppression he was opposing: the bourgeoisie oppression of the proletariat. And though there is more to Marx than what I am going to write next, one of the most foundational parts of Marxism, as stated in the Communist Manifesto, is the goal of having the proletariat overthrow the oppression practiced by the bourgeoisie. Unfortunately, Marx employed a form of all-or-nothing thinking that caused him to believe that the only way to do that was to replace the bourgeoisie dictatorship with a proletariat one. Though it occurred to some Marxists that a collaborative effort between the bourgeoisie and the proletariat that could accomplish the same goal, Marx didn’t seem to see it that way. What was explicitly stated in the Communist Manifesto was the overthrow of which he was speaking was to be initiated by proletariat winning their place of control democratically.
Marx’s naturalism would prevent him from seeing how our sins can be oppressive. At the same time, our own personal experiences are not even microcosms of our nation, let alone the world.
I don’t see Trump the way that you do. I see Trump desiring the same kind of relationship with evangelicalism that Putin has with the Russian Orthodox Church. That is that Putin throws just enough bones out to garner support from the Church officials and many of the church members while leading an oligarchy. If Trump is elected in 2024, I see today’s Russia as being America’s future.
And so, not because I want to, I am voting for Harris. I prefer to vote for a third party candidate. But I see that the election of Trump as beginning of the return of the Sith–hope that you get the Star Wars reference.
Marx’s observations and analysis of capitalism was based on the form of capitalism that existed during his time where he lived. It is important to note that because, like socialism, capitalism is not a monolith. However, if we look at our shareholder economy, where too many shareholders are comparable to unscrupolous absentee landlords, a lot of what Marx said about the capitalism of his time applies to the capitalism that America has embraced since the 1980s. This present form of capitalism is not the form of capitalism that America, and much of the world, employed after WW II.
Finally, as for America, how good our nation has always been complicated issue. For those of us who are privileged because of class and/or race, life has been good. But it has come at a very high price that was paid by many across the world and the lower economic classes and marginalized people here. I don’t know about you, but I grew up during the tale end of Jim Crow. And though Jim Crow laws weren’t codified where I lived in the Northeast, the same spirit of hateful racism, segregation and discrimination were prominent. And America represented a different nation to me than it did to many who were minorities.
Let me know what you think and what agree and disagree with. Again, thank you.
Yes, I have triplets graduating next Spring, so it will be quite the transition.
I spent my first 10 years out of High School in the Coast Guard. At the time it was highly competitive to get in, and pursuing the rating and or duty station of your choice was also competitive. What I see now in the Armed Services in general, is that due to recruiting goals being missed, standards are being lowered. I did not care the race, family background, or state of origin of my fellow Coastie…but I did care that they could rely on me to do my job, and vice versa.
One of the apparent things that DEI in higher institutions seems to require is a lowering of entry standards. Common sense seems clear that if you want good engineers and doctors, requiring less of them at point of entry is counter-productive. Our merit-based/ability-based system has created successful businesses and baseball teams. No coach put me on varsity if I couldn’t compete a the same level of the rest of the team, and also had demonstrated some skill/commitment/teamwork on the JV.
In my opinion, being in a minority and being oppressed are not synonymous. I just listened to the brief story of Larry Elder’s father’s life…and it’s one of those examples of the “if he can do it, anyone can” mantra that fuels American optimism. We’re a nation full of trite phrases – “If you think you can, or if you think you can’t – You’re right!” Insidiously, DEI communicates that “I don’t really think that you can, but if I lower the standards or give extra weight to your essay of oppression, I’ll let you in anyway.” I don’t view that as a leg up…I view it as a disabling crutch.
As for Trump…I’m willing to accept that I view life rather simply. I start with how do I act regarding my family and household, and then work my way out. Here are some applications of that thinking: Foreign Policy: I don’t let my neighbors tell me how to run my household. If I ask for help, I expect to get it…If I’m breaking the law, I expect them to call the police. I don’t like the aggression of either Russia or Hamas…someone attacks my family and there’s probably no end to my wrath…they attack my co-worker from another town and I need to be very clear if/how/why I get involved.
Immigration: Uninvited guests are not allowed in my house. Invited guests can’t just raid the fridge or the medicine cabinet. Even family usually only stays for a little while…but could stay indefinitely with agreed upon boundaries and ground rules. I grew up on the Arizona border in the 80’s and we didn’t follow those basics then…and we certainly don’t follow them now. Trump is at least trying to make/enforce boundaries.
Monetary Policy: Debt is bad, period. Might need it for a house or car or college…not to fund gifts, unnecessary purchases, influence or elective surgeries. Don’t take loans you can’t repay…have a plan, work it off. Our government is the worst example of spending like a drunken sailor I’ve ever seen. If both parties are going to do that for now…at least Trump wants more of the same things that I do, and less of the things I don’t.
When my own house isn’t in order, I’m a terrible example and have no business telling other people what to do. America First or MAGA at a minimum appears to be an attempt to clean up our side of the street.
I really didn’t get to capitalism versus marxism much. If I define them as one working for personal good and one working for the greater good, marxism theoretically seems better. But marxism doesn’t foster self-reliance, self-government, or ownership. From what I can tell it fosters censorship, low economic productivity, and repressed people. It seems only capitalism gives people the freedom to consider other political theories. Still think it’s the best.
John,
Below is a link to an interesting article on DEI from an insurance agency that utilizes it. Remember that DEI is not a centralized organization and generalizations should be based on sufficient data rather than anecdotes that come from personal experiences and observations.
https://www.marshmma.com/us/locations/minnesota/minneapolis/why-should-you-work-hard-to-keep-dei-alive-and-well.html#:~:text=Misconception%20one%3A%20DEI%20is%20designed,order%20to%20diversify%20an%20organization.
Second, though I have been retired for a decade, I taught college Computer Science, Information Technology and Freshman Math for 19 and 1/2 years. Standards have been lowered across the racial board. From my latter experiences, many students are entering college with neither the emotional maturity nor the academic preparation that students from my earlier experiences had.
As for using your household in your policy positions, remember that your household is not a microcosm of the world. That many people attempting to emigrate here are doing so to escape violence and/or poverty that were significantly contributed to by US foreign policies. As for a Christian household, wasn’t Israel told to to be kind to immigrants because Israelites were once wandering immigrants themselves? Here we are talking about Christian compassion to the vulnerable, which the early Church had a much better record in doing than the current Church in America. And we should remember what James said true religion is about.
As for Russia, just as NATO’s expansion eastward resurrected some bitter past memories for Russia, so did Russia’s invasion of Ukraine do the same for many European nations. There are two American global strategies that have failed miserably: imperialism and isolationism. In addition, when one looks at Trump’s past relationships with today’s tyrants, one doesn’t see in him a pillar of strength to resist such people.
Finally, when was America great according to MAGA?
I agree with you that my children are less mature and not as prepared as I was at the same age. I fear I fell into to common stereotypes of my age: helicopter parenting (exaggerated by having multiples), desire to make their lives more comfortable/give them more than I had, life revolving around their activities rather than parental/family events. And yet I’m blessed and biased that they are smart, God-fearing, respectful children.
Don’t give away too much expecting America to be kind to immigrants because God commands it. There’s a lot I’d like us to do as a country that falls into that category. I’m a fan of James…and consider the way we treat our widows and orphans to be an indictment of our society. Unfortunately, we don’t have reasonable discussions about how to best meet the needs of our own citizens, so I’m not convinced we’re to take care of those from other countries until we figure that out. Being generous, our government may be acting in ways THEY THINK are in the country’s best interest, but that is different than doing the will of the people. I think the government needs to get proficient at following orders for a decade or two instead of leading in a direction that doesn’t have obvious majority support.
I’ll take a shot at when was America great…when I was 11. Apparently 8-11 are formative years where most people think life is good. In terms of nostalgia I’d say 1946 to 1950 before the Korean War. Militarily we were victors and benefactors (hadn’t taken a tie or loss yet), domestically we were starting to desegregate everything, and the US dominated the London Olympics. The Great Depression and WWII were behind us and we weren’t collectively afraid of nuclear annihilation yet. Thanks for making me think about that question.
One part of MAGA that I think is overlooked is the willingness and desire for America to be great. There’s been so much ink spilled on why colonizing is bad, or slavery was bad, or westward expansion was bad. OK, I agree, I won’t do that anymore. But also I’m not going to apologize or feel responsible for something was going on everywhere in the world and that policies and civil wars and laws have sought to change. And the only ‘One World Government’ that I’ll support is under King Jesus – Maranatha! I want my business to prosper, I want my church to grow, I want my children to flourish, I want my sport’s teams to win, and I want America to be great! When I meet someone else who wants all those things…camaraderie is established. Though I’ve corresponded more with you, Curt than any other here…that’s the spirit and connection I feel with the writers of AmRef. Well done team!
John,
For which Americans was America great between 1946 and 1950? Jim Crow was still going strong and racism with discrimination and segregation was strong in the North. Ethnic conflicts were strong even between groups like the Italians and Irish. BTW, with Jim Crow was the murder of blacks and their allies along with other abuses and injustices and all with legal impunity. Sexism was also going strong but at least the form of Capitalism practiced back then was not as toxic as the form of Capitalism practiced now.
If you are afraid of a one world government, then be leery of those who are friendly or support Putin. As for MAGA, what is their definition of greatness that they want to make America great again?
BTW, the U.N. is not the kind of one world gov’t to be worried about. In fact, it is one that is desired. Without a standard international law, the world operates by the rule of force, which is what is occurring now. And during the nuclear age, operating by the rule of force is nothing more than an effort to make an exchange of nuclear weapons more and more probable. Without the rule of law, then the strong oppress the weak. Think about how the Israeli-Palestinian conflict would change if the U.S., Israel, and the Palestinians would submit themselves to the judgment of the ICC. But since military power is one of the biggest hammers in the US and Israel’s toolbox, the rule of force is passionately embraced but cloaked in a pretense of following the rule of law.
Hi Curt, I used the term nostalgia…I wasn’t there and I’m sure my glasses are rose-colored. However difficult assimilation between cultures and people groups were…the fact that general society was not accepting of divorce, abortion, being on the dole and other social ills still seems like a place worthy of revisiting. Government, in and of itself, didn’t cause those things to become prevalent, but they didn’t stand in the way of that “progress” (sarcasm quotes) either. I fully believe it will take revival and reformation to draw people to God – not political action. However, from my position, Trump is less likely to stand in the way of that happening than Harris in the next four years.
For grins I went to search for a MAGA definition online. The Center for American Progress writes this: “MAGA Republicans have launched an unprecedented assault on our democracy, rights, and freedoms. Their dangerous agenda seeks to undermine U.S. elections, ban abortion nationwide, and end bedrock programs such as Social Security, all while inciting political violence against anyone who disagrees.” I don’t have boots high enough to wade through that manure.
I’ve heard a nation defined as an area with an agreed upon border/language/culture (including govt. structure). The MAGA I support wants to strengthen all three of those things. Without them, I expect we’re likely to break into parts due to our sheer size. I don’t think a move by an area like Texas, or Montana, Wyoming, and the Dakotas to secede from the Union would be met with Civil War in today’s society.
I’m sure you’ll consider this short-sided, but I don’t see the value any longer of the UN, of NATO, of many of the old alliances and treaties. We’d be better served working hard with our two border neighbors and agreeing on how to deal with our energy needs, drugs and human exploitation, and how to educate our children for the future. If I prognosticate what global control structure looks like…some international blob will give Nestle control over managing the world’s water supply; Blackrock – global property rights; and Deutche Bank a global currency. You think the strong oppress the weak now? That would be tyranny.
As always Curt, thanks for making me think. I don’t think either of us will budge from our positions, but we don’t hate each other either. I don’t think you’re an AmRef plant either, though I’d argue you’ve galvanized the base more than convinced them to consider alternatives. Be blessed!